Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,
Patrick and I have addressed nits issues in the following revision.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/

Here is the revision letter to explain how we have resolved those issues.

Thanks for your dedication as a YANG doctor.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 5:19 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> Thanks for your review on the revision and new minor comments about pyang
> reporting.
> I will address them and submit a new revised draft.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> P.S. The following are the pyang reporting errors.
>
> Status: Ready with nits
>
> Nits:
> pyang 2.4.0 --ietf reporting errors:
>
> [e-mail]:47: warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The
> IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing (see pyang --ietf-help
> for details).
> [e-mail]:1011: error: RFC 8407: 4.14:
> statement "grouping" must have a "description" substatement
> [e-mail]:1016: error: keyword
> "description" not in canonical order, expected "type" (see RFC 6020,
> Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1017: error: keyword "type" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1018: error: keyword "default"
> not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1102: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1119: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1135: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1184: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1206: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1245: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1276: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1322: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1386: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1425: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1492: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1526: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1540: error: keyword
> "if-feature" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1605: error: keyword "config"
> not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1610: error: keyword "key" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1620: error: keyword "key" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1631: error: keyword "key" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1643: error: RFC 8407: 4.14:
> statement "container" must have a "description" substatement
> [e-mail]:1654: error: keyword "key" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1780: error: keyword
> "description" not in canonical order, expected "type" (see RFC 6020,
> Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1781: error: keyword "type" not
> in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1782: error: keyword "units"
> not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
> [e-mail]:1783: error: keyword "default"
> not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 2:10 AM Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have reviewed the module in draft-05.
>> Thanks for the revision letter. That really helped make the review go
>> fast.
>> All my draft-04 comments have been addressed.
>>
>> I cannot figure out how to enter a new review in the IETF pages (even
>> logged in),
>> so it is attached here. pyang is reporting some minor style issues.
>>
>>
>> Status: Ready with nits (see attached file)
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 7:15 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> Patrick and I have addressed your comments on the following revision:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-05
>>>
>>> I attach the revision letter to explain how to address your comments on
>>> the revision.
>>>
>>> If you have further comments, please let me know.
>>>
>>> If you are satisfied with our revision, please update the YANG doctor
>>> review status in the following link:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:03 AM Andy Bierman via Datatracker <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reviewer: Andy Bierman
>>>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Major Issues:
>>>>
>>>>  - None
>>>>
>>>> Moderate Issues:
>>>>
>>>>  - top-level 'counters' container does not follow naming conventions.
>>>>    Should start with 'i2nsf', probably 'i2nsf-state'
>>>>
>>>>  - There do not seem to be any writable objects in the /counters
>>>>    subtree so this container should have a 'config false' statement
>>>>
>>>>  - top-level typedef and grouping description-stmts are self-referential
>>>>    and not useful. Need to rewrite description-stmts and/or add
>>>>    reference-stmts as needed.
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping common-monitoring-data/time-stamp
>>>>    Is this a different time stamp than the one in the NETCONF
>>>> notification?
>>>>    The 'message generation time' sounds like the standard timestamp.
>>>>    Does this object represent the event detection time?
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-system-alarm-type-content/usage
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-system-alarm-type-content/threshold
>>>>    These are uint8 leafs with unclear descriptions.
>>>>    Not sure why uint8 is the appropriate type.
>>>>    Needs 1 or more of (reference, units, better description)
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping traffic-rates
>>>>    Add a units statement to each leaf. Not sure what units to use
>>>>    but it should be consistent. (e.g, pps, bps used in descriptions
>>>>    should also be in a units-stmt)
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-system-counter-type-content
>>>>    These counters should use the yang:counter32 type instead of uint32
>>>>
>>>>  - container counters/system-interface
>>>>  - container counters/nsf-firewall
>>>>  - container counters/nsf-policy-hits
>>>>   The descriptions are too terse and confusing, and need a rewrite.
>>>>
>>>>  -  container counters/nsf-firewall
>>>>  -  container counters/nsf-policy-hits
>>>>     - uses i2nsf-nsf-counters-type-content;
>>>>     Many of the fields expanded from this grouping all say
>>>>     they refer to 'the packet'. Why are they in this global
>>>>     container of counters? E.g. (src-ip, dst-ip, src-port, dst-port)
>>>>     Not clear at all how the server is supposed to apply this
>>>>     grouping to these containers.
>>>>
>>>>  - many leafs use "uint32" type for a rate.
>>>>    Should add a units-stmt
>>>>
>>>>  - leaf counters/nsf-policy-hits/hit-times
>>>>    The purpose and type are confusing and generic.
>>>>    If this is a counter then use counter32
>>>>
>>>>  - cut-and-paste for notification-stmt content should be replaced
>>>>    with grouping/uses instead. Applies to the nsf-detection-*
>>>>    and the various logging notifications. Even a grouping that
>>>>    has 1 object in it is better than cut-and-paste 5+ times
>>>>
>>>> Minor Issues:
>>>>
>>>>  - top-level identifiers are too generic
>>>>    should have 'i2nsf-' prefix to be more reusable outside this module
>>>>
>>>>  - quite a lot of identities that an implementation is required to
>>>> support.
>>>>    If this set of identities might change a lot faster than the
>>>>    notifications and counter objects, then consider putting them
>>>>    in a separate module
>>>>
>>>>  - leaf with same type named differently; both intrusion-attack-type
>>>>    - nsf-detection-intrusion/sub-attack-type
>>>>    - nsf-log-intrusion/attack-type
>>>>
>>>>  - quite a lot of notification event types for a server to implement
>>>>    and a user to manage. All are mandatory (no if-feature statements).
>>>>    Some such as nsf-detection-* subset are very similar.
>>>>    A section or table would be useful that showed the YANG notification
>>>>    names and their purpose -- maybe a reference to another RFC
>>>>    with more details
>>>>
>>>>  - there seems to be notifications for intrusion events and then
>>>>    again for the logging of those events.  This seems excessive
>>>>    but
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping common-monitoring-data/time-stamp
>>>>    Is this a different time stamp than the one in the NETCONF
>>>> notification?
>>>>    The 'message generation time' sounds like the standard timestamp.
>>>>    Is this event detection time?
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping common-monitoring-data/module-name
>>>>    Is this a YANG module or some other type of module?
>>>>
>>>>  - there is no way to configure which notifications should be generated
>>>>    or maybe how often.  YANG Push has its own dampening-period.
>>>>    Since these are event stream subscriptions, not datastore
>>>> subscriptions,
>>>>    YANG-Push does not apply to this document at all.
>>>>
>>>>    If there are a lot of notifications then a server implementation
>>>>    might drop some
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/src-zone
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/src-zone
>>>>    These use type 'string'. Consider using a typedef that constrains
>>>>    the string.  General comment where unconstrained string is used:
>>>>    The corner-case values such as empty string are often not allowed
>>>>    in implementations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/rule-id
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/rule-name
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content-extend/profile
>>>>    These objects seem to reference objects in another YANG module.
>>>>    If so, then leafref types might be more appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/rule-id
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/rule-name
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/profile
>>>>  - grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content/raw-info
>>>>    These objects are cut-and-paste duplicates from
>>>>    grouping i2nsf-nsf-event-type-content. They should
>>>>    be in a separate grouping used by both. Also applies
>>>>    to some other sets of objects
>>>>
>>>>  - limits issues (e.g. current-session, maximum-session
>>>>    The type is uint8. This is only OK it is impossible for any
>>>>    implementation to ever have or want more than 255 of them.
>>>>    If some other RFC really does limit the values where uint8
>>>>    is used, then that is OK. If so, a reference-stmt would help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> ===========================
> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department Head
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Sungkyunkwan University
> Office: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>