[yang-doctors] FW: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt

"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2019 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mersue@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 83243120077 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 XqVTE6-L9Guc for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (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 3E6C01200CC for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id p13so62378864wru.10 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-language:thread-index; bh=ATcr9D6En9BgloYUGgaxjh6+TItY61S8rdluaZI0EM0=; b=T0Isk21qg8pr3iBg9IxEDmTTqUI3LnaKt1COrCcfMex2M+1xvHIpwTLnNFC7QTH/gr XWaFTFPqfOZWDUQ5MkJSscgp8M5vO2ze90diiQo20Day9e+i1L1VnWhpPAA35m7ASUII DVxcwwUUUl62GUaEPi30YQY3AKcs5aHL70CHGOgE9DW/2562lkIonEpRcXAPaqzxbDhQ Uic9zffpKvZI0T8Wh2HrBW3Q/r7ReODf7S6eL+ucevVBL6sFgmiTgL13HYvP0vFJybga 1e0OwdUWSaT2R2bS1mzzFvBOy7TelCP53y/1q/GRa/NOo3dbtzqVh3+Y6QwqOIkizbKk 9SQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=ATcr9D6En9BgloYUGgaxjh6+TItY61S8rdluaZI0EM0=; b=n6yekqy1RAT2VTi84W2SonI8jk+tq2Hi+E7FS88FG1pqUq8ZKyFHAE/4K5uCkiULVr 42ci8Mrh1lGp3b0KtccXPRdGnCk4VUxytWM7HeE0wq9K0+VIbZfromp0bYamg8Lj0CsQ P5oT7tgdJzLI7wPNtoq4bLBaRGRkpBP0j11CMSQmmBson17NP5psyXLH1P7CvlIr9xZO PdesRwsUm1WD60UdiQ5r+9sd3/IvisAxarBJ/XYGq7hmFkpYl/9ILbjb5WpG6PiQ2Wsx USV/tuwvEAVojCGwumFLLSIDGDHTT/ShPvEM1FlDjvABqPl3RTu1BXZOZyEAGd9eswyO QdPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW864/SLrHuoFDyfhzmtakHY0FJQINU219K6Tpg689vq51Ah+BK /+CKycWyuAX0SIiI3Urak/DX+5zI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwp2s7h06U+o9djJ1mCDu7njRtf8A6nDzgkoky9prdvZ/1l5CC650flPo1DPpFBQkwpNcVx5g==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1189:: with SMTP id g9mr86060912wrx.51.1564415455396; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ (200116b82b18de0098ec147886a90423.dip.versatel-1u1.de. [2001:16b8:2b18:de00:98ec:1478:86a9:423]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g2sm54089750wmh.0.2019.07.29.08.50.54 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 08:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
To: <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
References: <AB210DB8-0137-41D6-9495-0B3FBE07343F@cisco.com> <CAPK2DezgBGPQW5jfLXcWTE8+S_4Hn+DDpWHzyRyw3tO2ygnEGQ@mail.gmail.com> <C19F54F8-FE18-41BB-8D28-292FCEA795D1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C19F54F8-FE18-41BB-8D28-292FCEA795D1@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:50:53 +0200
Message-ID: <016001d54625$67d3b680$377b2380$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0161_01D54636.2B5F1E90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: de
Thread-Index: AQHrw9agrb+0wgv+xWLLKkBKFethLgFqvXAGAmS69dKmlkbn8A==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/BQyh9-jekCkjHOEihAPJY5II9Uc>
Subject: [yang-doctors] FW: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt
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, 29 Jul 2019 15:51:01 -0000

Forward

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; 
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 5:29 PM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>;
Cc: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model@ietf.org; i2nsf@ietf.org; yang-doctors <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org>;; i2nsf-ads@ietf.org; skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt

 

Hi Paul, 

Thank you for incorporating my comments and adding examples. Note that the module prologue still doesn’t match the suggested template in RFC 8407 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B

 

One question – I see this work is being done as part of a funding project. Does this include implementation of an I2NSF Security Controller? This would go further to validate the models than any reviews. 

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com <mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com> >
Cc: "draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model@ietf.org> " <draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model@ietf.org> >, "i2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org> " <i2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org> >, yang-doctors <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org> >, "i2nsf-ads@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf-ads@ietf.org> " <i2nsf-ads@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf-ads@ietf.org> >, "skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com <mailto:skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com> " <skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com <mailto:skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt

 

Hi Acee, 

Here is the revision letter for the revised draft, reflecting your comments along with the revised draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05 

 

If you have further comments and questions, please let me know.

 

Thanks.

 

Best Regards,

Paul

 

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:09 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com> > wrote:

Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: June 18, 2019
Review Type: Working Group Last Call
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary: Not ready for publication

Modules: "ietf-i2nsf-capability@2019-03-28.yang <mailto:ietf-i2nsf-capability@2019-03-28.yang> "

Tech Summary: The model is logically structured and seems to fulfill its
intended purpose. The "Overview" section defines the usage, context, and
usage of the model, i.e., it is limited to the NSF capability registration 
interface. However, the draft/model is very rough and not ready for working 
group last call. It seems that it has not gotten adequate review by the chairs
and other members of the I2NSF Working Group. 

Major Comments:

 1. The "Security Considerations" in section 8 do not conform to the
    recommended template in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-
    guidelines>

 2. The document is missing XML or JSON examples. 


Minor Comments: 

 1. Section 3.1 should reference RFC8340 rather than attempting to
    include tree diagram formatting semantics.

 2. Much of the text is very hard to read and awkwardly worded. There 
    are some instances of sentence fragments. I starting trying to 
    remedy this but found I was rewriting the entire draft and, in 
    many cases, I wasn't sure my edits matched the original intent. I'll
    send the attached diff with suggested edits to the authors - it was too
    big to send to IETF lists. 

 3. "iicapa" is a poor choice for default model prefix - I suggest 
    "nsfcap". It is just as concise but actually expands to something
     meaningful. 

 4. Similar to the text in the narrative sections of the draft, the text in the
     YANG model description statements is very awkwardly worded.

 5. What are the references for the ipv4-sameip and ipv4-geoip conditions?

 6. Add reference for egress-action-capa. 

 7. RFC 2460 is obsoleted by RFC 8200.

 8. Suggest hyphenation of identifiers ipv4-same-ip, ipv4-geo-ip, and
    ipv6-ip-opts.

 9. Suggest hyphenation of anti-virus and anti-ddos both in identifiers
    and in the text.  

10. Suggest providing a definitions for absolute and periodic time. 

11. The References do not include all the RFCs referenced by YANG 
       model reference statements.

Thanks,
Acee


_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> ,  <mailto:pauljeong@skku.edu> pauljeong@skku.edu
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>