Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262801200FA; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:38:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PzZ0LB7Dg3k; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C46F120105; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id b3so11104476wrs.13; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 04:37:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zqhr8e8Uiq1V/3hi2J0OjDfnnHp/fjrvR783I57pSv0=; b=nhC0WxQCEb9z4xr4k5a327E6pdj8VSunrDJuphQcA572v/07F5Ar+u11aITWW462ck GFr4Z1wOB0qyzBM2wCIEOOGTpdX/imxIMeBaqoerOK5kqA7Tu3fiLZ4t2B5JOdHW+c9Z g3ueP/3OZ+oMr81itEx3FiqtBWtbmX+6q0D1grGkmiYtYaPBt/CbYp2UWeJKRLTzPYWx iOLHQTX1XFcxIdZ2dxkb6w28oO8cqooEgbSjw6Fu60hMWGlJaU2MbZZUKs7IgdQqH9pm udlPB/qkQFuIWccsQWmkHgRDDRJkOvimBAZ/XsEk4VnACD6MYKBD+BK8o9CaW1Ail9mS 9ygQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zqhr8e8Uiq1V/3hi2J0OjDfnnHp/fjrvR783I57pSv0=; b=QdhRUQAgEu5r5xVC/o77EL4Stzl+C6LCzJNyV5siPlJTIieJG/86FYT8yte9vn1Zvk H5hncm+ophcemBxsBqsyNdB3oMSqO9FGTCmDhiAG3SZYytw4PP8wHYp13gfO3MyT29xN /KalG7eCGHbPDG42luqPc9WwonkfKyZGS5rxG4rwWFnG4V+KSCu/G7hoPxs8X56zb+IT NQLwNi+CNrZfum+0WKiA5Ep54s34+xKwu11XfSqtKCQyrMTa6IX4hctc0ZJ5f2A31Ea6 3/Rt6iaHAkkQGOQfxDzUISTCZvoewerGY4lYMrxZIaELMYnpwCgKFfXt/Uy5hgbNr/Hq CB0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnooMa2T/MauaC4BX0zuTwpzW0HZHdopJ6oT1mGyYx+BVL4d7q lOtIkbHlA0Xo13LHJsoZmZqXOuXlwryxqSZ3zQ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHzntq//hDjaXIM2uzVCOKVDLERztMfqhjgMCci9uHv3un7nPfvAkgsUCbcqoU/z0H8LPayzwR/Iaw3t+jPFU=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e2cc:: with SMTP id d12mr1987163wrj.168.1572871072178; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 04:37:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E650398F-D50C-486D-9717-90BA617BA0A1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E650398F-D50C-486D-9717-90BA617BA0A1@cisco.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:37:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2Dez5b4pL9+_UPxf77jcPQMygVG-=eaMEd+nMJoJ9Dg92vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm@ietf.org>, "i2nsf-ads@ietf.org" <i2nsf-ads@ietf.org>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000008903bf0596849576"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/-n-CdNB5Q5YyuSsp68MkdneHHKQ>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:38:04 -0000

Hi Acee,
I have reflected all your comments in the revised I-D of NSF-Facing
Interface YANG Data Model:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08

I attach the revision letter to explain how I reflected your comments on
each of your comments.

If you have questions, please let me know.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:03 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:

> I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's
>
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These
>
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects
> of the
>
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews
>
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> comments
>
> just like any other early review comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06
>
> Reviewer: Acee Lindem
>
> Review Date: June 22, 2019
>
> Review Type: Working Group Last Call
>
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary: Needs to go back to Working Group for rework and another WGLC
>
>
>
> Modules: "ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf@2019-06-12.yang";
>
>
>
> Tech Summary: The model defines different types of I2NSF security policy.
> Each
>
>                              is comprised of an event, a condition, and an
> action. There is
>
>                              significant overlap with other IETF models.
> Within I2NSF, there
>
>                              is repetition of definitions which needs to
> go into a common
>
>                              I2NSF types module.  Additionally, the data
> descriptions were
>
>                               were done quickly and never reviewed or
> edited. I believe
>
>                              it needs to go back to the working group for
> another revision and
>
>                              working group last call.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Major Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Why don't you leverage the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching?
>
>     We don't need all this defined again.
>
>
>
>  2. Date and time are defined in RFC 6991. Why don't those suffice?
>
>
>
>  3. Refer to the intervals as "time-intervals" rather than "time-zones".
>
>     The term "time-zone" has a completely different connotation.
>
>
>
>  4. What the "acl-number"? Also, ACLs are named (RFC 8519). Also, why
>
>     define all the packet matching and then reference an ACL.
>
>
>
>  5. The descriptions are very awkwardly worded and in many cases simply
>
>     repeat the data node or identify description without hyphens. I
>
>     started trying to fix this but it was too much. I'll pass for on
>
>     for some examples. There are enough co-authors and contributors that
>
>     one would expect much better.
>
>
>
>  6. There is overlap of definitions with the I2NSF capabilities draft.
>
>     The common types and identities should be factored into a common
>
>     I2NSF types module.
>
>
>
>  7. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the
>
>     recommended template in
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-
>
>     guidelines>
>
>
>
>
>
> Minor Comments:
>
>
>
>  1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to
>
>     include tree diagram formatting semantics.
>
>
>
>  2. "iiprfn" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest
>
>     "nsfintf". It is only one character longer and actually is expands
>
>      to something meaningful.
>
>
>
>  3. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200.
>
>
>
>  4. RFC 791 is the wrong reference for IPv4 TOS. It should be RFC 1394.
>
>
>
>  5. What is the IGRP protocol? I'm familiar with EIGRP but not IGRP.
>
>
>
>  6. What is the skip protocol? Is this about skipping the check? If so,
>
>     why is it needed.
>
>
>
>  7. Reference for IPv6 ICMP should be RFC 2463.
>
>
>
>  8. Why do you include Photuris definitions? Nobody uses this.
>
>
>
>  9. Note that all the keys for all 'config true' lists must be
>
>     unique so your specification in the description as well as
>
>     'mandatory true' are redundant for the 'rules' list. This
>
>     mistake is in other lists as well.
>
>
>
> 10. What is 'during' time?
>
>
>
> 11. What is a "security-grp"? Is this a security-group?
>
>
>
> 12. The module prologue doesn't match the example in Appendix B of
>
>     RFC 8407.
>
>
>
> 13. There needs to be a good definition of absolute and periodic
>
>        time in the descriptions.
>
>
>
> 14. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG
>
>     model reference statements.
>
>
>
> Nits: Will send diff to authors and i2nsf chairs as example of review that
> should be done on YANG documents prior to sending to YANG doctors.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>


-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>