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, 24 June 2019 05:53 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 9D62B1200DE; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:53:45 -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=1.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 MUEIPHXO78ta; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 E5B1F12003F; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id v14so12429161wrr.4; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:53:39 -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=34l/4JptoL5iii35ori+giI06N/4TrAJJsNxwihw6og=; b=sINYVBEBAofAJ6qM1X85dCBerqhe2dgWo6/hNa9YeFYXIKaUu9KOfNsm0w+PoRBInL QLnVQxBMeawYEYv9Nz5Sg8WI+fgcxNbE5rWn2eYL02yFLapPMNNTevP7AgXMzymM64qk TLe3NQv91s2Kiyvude8WvbL2s+ZRW7kOfj6zkIn2sXOboTkHk1g76SmcLiUPviN+N/PF RTRLJUbOusSzjwutefV0hfOkG8g8MbGSRxii77YTteHHt3naGvGCmBkDTeRwh08ccl6R zyTuqOuKc50FhAKABMbTDUkLDHTCMKO3E8sJM5HmrY9tEZtjE8QsBl2bZ806pJMcWngz YFCw==
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=34l/4JptoL5iii35ori+giI06N/4TrAJJsNxwihw6og=; b=q35D1sEgQBQY5HBFG2Rlypa748cZb92vJcAmY1JpGoWmBgYsEANUnFur581OSWkohA WHIdvbNaEbCurajbA95oeSDLlgpPJdiHqzlwsYxpuQSYB7CbtsCOMxs1M6otibC7AwSM aNXXfKM1UXwupDCJwPogkSr42QV3JsI4piz7GVxY4oLWeJHcDo/kY0TRAhKoEIEYKjPf goiGXmV8tI8T9vqbfmlJornYHLQLhWZ4qNq6wF94sbjMcaFkpNOPtyhLpTjYJrI7qaYv 0U5znlhDAKNIknSMmrcTXjBmUa8nlS/G4F2xmgCiwIS7nyqbH6eB/DrzmrUDXK/M22yZ tIVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPF+k6zcjCVknhxwXk0l3mliDg7eKWJ713fZOFEzXhKJC43tj5 L2NON6rCwoKlNfU/2413DBfz17r8I8fntIViosQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbHMAIfA9b9zD/J0FxuRwdFsKlvJRjqs5eolktUYMUUWSS0I/dHMocxRlPnXoc407+A3TnRUrvuSIAe5PMUac=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:eb89:: with SMTP id t9mr50091280wrn.120.1561355618241; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 22:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
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, 24 Jun 2019 14:53:27 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2DewDzd73PgaE4yUpVBNE0yBw+-MEnE96FBf3uPNK1J6q5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm@ietf.org, i2nsf-ads@ietf.org, i2nsf@ietf.org, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, skku_secu-brain_all@googlegroups.com, Jaehoon Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe504d058c0b6e74"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/o_LaB3mvjrdPv34F-KwvoFvdcNw>
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, 24 Jun 2019 05:53:46 -0000
Hi Acee, We authors will address your valuable comments on NSF facing interface. Thanks a lot. Best Regards, Paul 2019년 6월 23일 (일) 오전 3:03, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>님이 작성: > 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 >
- [yang-doctors] YANG Doctors Working Group Last Ca… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] YANG Doctors Working G… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong