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> Tue, 30 July 2019 06:59 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 CB06D1200E9; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 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, HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=1.499, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 55l4wls2QcH2; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x443.google.com (mail-wr1-x443.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::443]) (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 A47541200B3; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x443.google.com with SMTP id f9so64424870wre.12; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
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=1Xo71KxFnCslE3cZdJhjTbDR4D1QXVX4vNvXRLjAOLQ=; b=qzZmJ4tfVMnSz8eyQvWbkxPLTHRlrAgU6v4p0Q0wVhe+alLWFvkKZsUnRKvDTJ0dZR 61CEdtv3pMRgLhWDtpEjjYE7lLTX1XCJ1dp0NfGzaAKffdQD96Ih45OvtNJmlMTEDYhN HlUG/I/c3YLuNDXV9fxyzj9PVXqSIJ5uKQczfpLPShtlm0EGgP2Ty+KW5fn4imbLriKX lNkvVA7oBnBFg/uGTfUPowb2yjcdj2t+SrtOIi4fDrk72qkGx9lBh3OvpoCdXrDkk0Ly fwDRZ9851PBR8Wt8YYWg02z1g74MZDNPui4dSYFhF1qvesopUJHP0j+JhHH3DuXMomVn x7yg==
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=1Xo71KxFnCslE3cZdJhjTbDR4D1QXVX4vNvXRLjAOLQ=; b=JO8h+slN7YZb6sJpTbEJK0fDPD3KJ5gll2oMcuACxS/jmyCKkAmwW1hNikXhbUkIVl wng0ZMNWsrGlTh97aERaAkdp6Zo9lIfDl0i/7PfQuuELLAOBDL+F2D6C7WewkyOMr360 dW7tWsRumsO5DyW3Ql1W5s73ZLT/aNLuAcqJ0JYyN3FWXh1coL3rNYtHaG5Vw6fSQqOA tDgVcvKyANPn1EKFRAjRu37xMofwkTSqaS5W8vE2QVghv5MrwrFaejq3T2NVMXaF9GZf 5Q52KWyhFR1ycTuKxhjd3Q22LfXLxunbydT/oPAxxrCbYaxf8LTNLPL7g6W0akPGpURl QUvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXS9TEpe+T2ZqkpGD4Zo1V0hzpxokgLDn3aQP+baN5j6bU9hboi XVwk6Y5tBS3gkYe7xt5oUa3aG67fCQIggi0e1yw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2T+VbU029UQBCFmE071Cvpjx4u/USYXvY43vT1KK7qqdcjow5GO3GBQkIuJBnsHkpc/bRG4+XJOd/ZQMuwMc=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f281:: with SMTP id k1mr37807673wro.154.1564469978921; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E650398F-D50C-486D-9717-90BA617BA0A1@cisco.com> <CAPK2DezLmpQtkWRd5aN2zWDSz=UZLjvbd1+tMW=gZ2HJHVGj3g@mail.gmail.com> <07657C4C-62E5-4C6A-9647-6FFE1B62EA6E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <07657C4C-62E5-4C6A-9647-6FFE1B62EA6E@cisco.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:59:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2DeyKj_vocCCQvTQWES9TW2OUE3=GZFdjec_Z_p5zGDXY-Q@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_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com" <skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com>, "Jingyong (Tim) Kim" <wlsdyd0930@nate.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b0030058ee08d41"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ixUbJGegJUfHbkR7zbWY91Q-Fds>
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:59:44 -0000

Hi Acee,
I will let the module prologue in the next revised draft match the
suggested template in RFC 8407.

I will leverage the existing IETF modiles for packet match specification
and date/time specification
in the next revision.

When the revision is done, I will let you know.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>
>
> The module prologue still doesn’t match the suggested template in RFC 8407
> - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B. Additionally, you
> didn’t take my suggestion to leverage existing IETF models for packet match
> specification - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8519/ and date/time
> specification  - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8177.txt. Did you look
> at these?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>;
> *Date: *Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 10:10 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <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_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com"; <
> skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com>;
> *Subject: *Re: [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Call Review for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-06
>
>
>
> 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-nsf-facing-interface-dm-07
>
>
>
> The following things have not been addressed yet due to the time
> limitation.
>
> - The leveraging of the definitions in RFC 8519 for packet matching.
> - The factoring of common types and identities into a common I2NSF types
> module.
>
> These two will be reflected in the next revision.
>
> If you have further comments and questions, please let me know.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:03 PM 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>
>


-- 
===========================
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>