Hi Robert and Megan, I have been busy with my university teaching since the IETF 124. I will be able to work on this cluster of I2NSF drafts from next week.
I am sorry for this delay. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Mobile: +82-10-4758-1765 Phone: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected], [email protected] URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php 2025년 11월 26일 (수) 오전 7:08, Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > I just found this thread in a supposedly inactive folder! > > I will attempt to figure it out... > > Bob > > > On 11/3/25 12:27 PM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: > > Megan, > Thanks for your understanding and support.:-) > > If I have questions about my work on this cluster, I will contact RFC > editors in Montreal. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 12:23 PM Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> No problem from our end; please take the time you need. >> >> I am not in Montreal, but there are several editors from the RPC there >> with office hours at the RFC Editor table. Please feel free to either stop >> by and see them or email me directly if you have anything you’d like to ask >> as you work through your revisions. >> >> Enjoy IETF 124! >> >> Megan Ferguson >> RFC Production Center >> >> > On Nov 1, 2025, at 1:23 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Megan, >> > I need more time on this cluster of the I2NSF drafts because I was busy >> with my teaching and research last month. >> > I am in Montreal for the IETF 124 Meeting, so I will focus on the >> revision of those drafts according to your comments. >> > >> > Thanks for your waiting and patience. >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Paul >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 1:37 AM Megan Ferguson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Paul, >> > >> > Perfect timing as I will be out of office next week. >> > >> > Note that if you do encounter any blocking issue that requires >> assistance in my absence, you can still reach out to >> [email protected] (otherwise, your response will be handled upon >> my return). >> > >> > Thank you. >> > >> > Megan Ferguson >> > RFC Production Center >> > >> > > On Oct 9, 2025, at 8:21 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Megan, >> > > That's great! >> > > >> > > I will work on your questions from tomorrow for a week and will come >> back to you >> > > when I have them resolved in the five revised xml files. >> > > >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > Best Regards, >> > > Paul >> > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM Megan Ferguson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > Hi Paul, >> > > >> > > Thank you for sending along the ordering information; we have noted >> your response and will use this information in our editing and RFC number >> assignment. >> > > >> > > Note that these documents will remain in AUTH state until we hear >> back with the updated files addressing Questions 1-10. >> > > >> > > Thank you for your attention to this document set! >> > > >> > > Megan Ferguson >> > > RFC Production Center >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Oct 9, 2025, at 4:41 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Megan, >> > > > Here are my answers as the editor of all these six drafts inline >> below. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:58 PM Megan Ferguson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > All, >> > > > >> > > > A further question: do you have guidance on reading order for these >> drafts? >> > > > => Yes, we have guidance on reading order for them. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > If so, please let us know using an RFC NNNN, RFC NNNN+1, RFC NNNN+2 >> format. >> > > > >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 => RFC NNNN + 3 >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 => RFC NNNN + 4 >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-18 => RFC NNNN + 5 >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 => RFC NNNN >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 => RFC NNNN + 1 >> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 => RFC NNNN + 2 >> > > > >> > > > Thanks. >> > > > >> > > > Best Regards, >> > > > Paul >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thank you. >> > > > >> > > > Megan Ferguson >> > > > RFC Production Center >> > > > >> > > > > On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:47 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Megan, >> > > > > Sure, we can work on those documents together. >> > > > > If I need your help, I will let you know. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, >> > > > > Paul >> > > > > =========================== >> > > > > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong >> > > > > Professor >> > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> > > > > Sungkyunkwan University >> > > > > Phone: +82-31-299-4957 >> > > > > Email: [email protected], [email protected] >> > > > > URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2025년 10월 1일 (수) 오전 12:09, Megan Ferguson < >> [email protected]>님이 작성: >> > > > > Hi Paul, >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you for your reply. We look forward to working with you to >> get these documents moving through the publication process! >> > > > > >> > > > > I’ve made sure to update the CC field to include the AUTH48 >> archive and Roman as AD (and removed Deb Cooley per her separate reply). >> > > > > >> > > > > Please feel free to reach out with any questions/concerns as >> necessary. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you. >> > > > > >> > > > > Megan Ferguson >> > > > > RFC Production Center >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Sep 30, 2025, at 3:09 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Megan, >> > > > > > Thanks for your excellent work on this cluster of I2NSF YANG >> Data Model drafts. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I will work on your comments and questions this and next weeks >> as the editor of all these five drafts >> > > > > > and come back to you later. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best Regards, >> > > > > > Paul >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > =========================== >> > > > > > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong >> > > > > > Professor >> > > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> > > > > > Sungkyunkwan University >> > > > > > Phone: +82-31-299-4957 >> > > > > > Email: [email protected], [email protected] >> > > > > > URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >> > > > > > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaehoonjeong/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:44 PM Megan Ferguson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > Authors, Editors, *ADs, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We have a number of questions related to the following >> documents from Cluster 405 (C405): >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We note that resolving these questions may require significant >> author input or updates. As such, we would like to raise these issues now, >> rather than during AUTH48. Please review the questions/comments below, >> discuss amongst yourselves, update the attached XML files with any >> necessary changes, and resubmit the xml files to the RPC via email at your >> earliest convenience. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As this is outside our normal process, note that the files are >> in various states of editorial completion and have not yet benefitted from >> a final review within the RPC. Therefore, we ask that you ignore any edits >> or queries in the XML files not directly related to the list below (i.e., >> please refrain from making any further changes at this time). All other >> queries/issues will be handled once the documents reach AUTH48. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please reach out with any questions and let us know if we can >> be of further assistance as you complete this process. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note: Each of the above documents has been moved to “AUTH” >> state (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/) as they are awaiting >> author action prior to moving forward in the publication process. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The related cluster information page is viewable at: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C405 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Megan Ferguson >> > > > > > RFC Production Center >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1) The text in the Security Considerations sections of the >> following documents does not match the boilerplate at >> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We also note that RFC 4252 has not been cited in the references >> sections. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please consider what, if any, updates need to be made. Note >> that these updates will likely require *AD approval. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As we do not see any mention of RPC operations in this >> document, please confirm that the "Some of the RPC operations" paragraph as >> listed on <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines> is >> not applicable to this document. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2) *AD - please review and approve the changes that the authors >> made between version -18 and version -20 of >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model at: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/history/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 3) For each document in the list at the top of this mail, >> please review the following related to titles: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We note that most of the published RFCs containing YANG modules >> format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched >> Optical Networks (WSONs) >> > > > > > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types >> > > > > > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We also note the guidance from RFC 7322 (RFC Style Guide) to >> expand abbreviations in document titles. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please consider whether the titles of these documents should be >> updated to something like the following example: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > A YANG Data Model for Interface to Network Security Functions >> (I2NSF) Monitoring >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note: If changes are made, please also consider if changes to >> the abbreviated title should be made as well. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 4) The following questions relate to the Terminology sections: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a) We note that these documents: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > include the following text in the Terminology section: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8329]. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > However, when looking at the Terminology section of RFC 8329 >> (included below for your convenience), we see that no definitions are >> listed: there is simply a list of terms and a pointer to >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology/), which >> is now expired: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2.2. Definitions >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The following terms, which are used in this document, are >> defined in >> > > > > > the I2NSF terminology document [I2NSF-TERMS]: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Capability >> > > > > > Controller >> > > > > > Firewall >> > > > > > I2NSF Consumer >> > > > > > I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface >> > > > > > I2NSF Policy Rule >> > > > > > I2NSF Producer >> > > > > > I2NSF Registration Interface >> > > > > > I2NSF Registry >> > > > > > Interface >> > > > > > Interface Group >> > > > > > Intrusion Detection System >> > > > > > Intrusion Protection System >> > > > > > Network Security Function >> > > > > > Role >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We further note that not all terms listed in RFC 8329 are used >> in this document set and that some terms from >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 are used but not listed in RFC 8329 (e.g., >> I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We recommend including the definitions used in this set of >> documents in the documents themselves instead of pointing to an expired >> draft from 2018. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note: If more than one document in this cluster uses a term, we >> suggest including the definition in one document and including a citation >> to that document in the other documents in the cluster. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > b) Related to the above, >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26 uses: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC3444], >> > > > > > [RFC8329] and [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model]. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > However, the definitions listed and those in RFC 8329 (and thus >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08) are not the same. For example: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: >> > > > > > Network Security Function (NSF): A function that is >> responsible for >> > > > > > a specific treatment of received packets. A Network >> Security >> > > > > > Function can act at various layers of a protocol stack >> (e.g., at >> > > > > > the network layer or other OSI layers). Sample Network >> Security >> > > > > > Service Functions are as follows: Firewall, Intrusion >> Prevention/ >> > > > > > Detection System (IPS/IDS), Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), >> > > > > > Application Visibility and Control (AVC), network virus >> and >> > > > > > malware scanning, sandbox, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), >> Distributed >> > > > > > Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation and TLS proxy. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08: >> > > > > > Network Security Function (NSF): Software that provides a >> set of >> > > > > > security-related services. Examples include detecting >> unwanted >> > > > > > activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such >> unwanted >> > > > > > activity in order to fulfil service requirements. The >> NSF can >> > > > > > also help in supporting communication stream integrity and >> > > > > > confidentiality. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please review the above text and consider if/how to update >> either the citation or the definition. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > c) Related to a), we see RFC 8329 and >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-08 use the term "Intrusion Protection System >> (IPS)” while this set of documents uses Intrusion Prevention System >> (however, in draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32, we do see >> "intrusion detection and/or protection" as well as "Intrusion Prevention >> System (IPS)"). Please review and update accordingly. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 5) The following questions relate to the reference clauses in >> the YANG modules: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a) We see mixed styles in reference clauses with regard to use >> of a section number, a concept name, a section name/title, and an RFC >> title. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We suggest making the reference clauses in the YANG modules >> uniform following the pattern below to match the guidance in >> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28 ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/) where a >> section number (instead of a concept) is pointed to. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > reference >> > > > > > "RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics >> > > > > > - Request Method PUT"; >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > reference >> > > > > > "RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics, Section 9.3.4"; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > b) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-monitoring-data-model-20: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [IEEE-802.1AB]'s title is "IEEE Standard for Local and >> metropolitan area networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity >> Discovery" rather than "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area >> networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery - >> > > > > > Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)”. Should this be updated >> as follows in the YANG reference clauses? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Current: >> > > > > > reference >> > > > > > "IEEE-802.1AB: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan >> > > > > > area networks - Station and Media Access Control >> > > > > > Connectivity Discovery - Link Layer Discovery Protocol >> > > > > > (LLDP)" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > reference >> > > > > > "IEEE-802.1AB: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan >> > > > > > area networks - Station and Media Access Control >> > > > > > Connectivity Discovery" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > c) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-monitoring-data-model-20: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [RFC4861] does not contain a section titled "Neighbor Discovery >> Protocol (ND)" and because the entire document is about Neighbor Discovery, >> please review whether a section pointer is necessary when completing the >> updates suggested in (a) above. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Current: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 >> (IPv6) - >> > > > > > Neighbor Discovery Protocol (ND)”; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > d) See a further possible update to YANG reference clauses in >> question 6e below. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 6) The following questions relate to citations/references of >> these documents: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a) The "YANG Module Names" registry is defined in RFC 6020 and >> not in RFC 7950. Please see Section 14 of RFC 6020 ( >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020) and >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We have changed "7950" to "6020" accordingly (and added an >> informative reference entry to RFC 6020). Please let us know any concerns >> with these updates. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > This document requests IANA to register the following YANG >> module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Currently: >> > > > > > IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG >> Module Names" registry [RFC6020] [RFC8525]: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > b) We note that some of these documents contain snippets of >> XML. Per < >> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/formal-languages-use/>, >> we believe the documents should cite [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] ("Extensible >> Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)") somewhere in the body of the >> document and list it as a Normative Reference, per RFC 8349. Please add an >> appropriate citation and reference entry where necessary. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > c) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We see several RFCs mentioned in the lead-in text to the YANG >> module that are not included in the YANG module itself. Please review and >> consider if these citations (and possibly their corresponding reference >> entries) should be removed. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The list has been included below for your convenience: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [RFC0768] >> > > > > > [RFC0854] >> > > > > > [RFC0959] >> > > > > > [RFC1939] >> > > > > > [RFC2595] >> > > > > > [RFC3022] >> > > > > > [RFC4250] >> > > > > > [RFC4340] >> > > > > > [RFC4443] >> > > > > > [RFC5321] >> > > > > > [RFC9051] >> > > > > > [RFC9110] >> > > > > > [RFC9112] >> > > > > > [RFC9113] >> > > > > > [RFC9260] >> > > > > > [RFC9293] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > d) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The reference below appears to be pointing to the POSIX.1 >> standard. However, the provided URL points to a specific page in the >> POSIX.1 specification for "glob". >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We recommend having this reference's URL point to the >> specification in general, rather than this specific page. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Additionally, please note that there is a more up-to-date >> version of POSIX.1: >> > > > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/ >> > > > > > (The updated URL for "glob” is >> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/glob.html) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Would you like to update this reference to the most current >> version? (FYI - We have inserted a comment in the XML with this updated >> information). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For your convenience, we have included the suggested updated >> reference for you to review (combining points a and b above) in text form >> below: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > [GLOB] IEEE, "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue >> 7, 2018 >> > > > > > Edition", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, >> > > > > > < >> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ >> > > > > > functions/glob.html>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > [GLOB] IEEE/The Open Group, "The Open Group Base >> Specifications >> > > > > > Issue 8", POSIX.1-2024, IEEE Std 1003.1-2024, >> 2024, >> > > > > > < >> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > e) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-31 and >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding the [ISO-3166-1alpha2], [ISO-3166-2], and [ISO-3166] >> references: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The URL for [ISO-3166-1alpha2] goes to a page titled "ISO 3166 >> Country Codes" (Note: this is the same URL that [ISO-3166-2] redirects to). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It appears the decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes is >> now available here: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:pub:PUB500001:en. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We found the following URL for the most up-to-date version of >> ISO 3166-2 (ISO 3166-2:2020): https://www.iso.org/standard/72483.html. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Would you like to update to point to the most up-to-date >> version of ISO 3166 (see example reference updates below)? (FYI - We have >> inserted a comment in the XML with this updated information). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note that further updates to these references are recommended >> with regard to title, etc. Please review and confirm or let us know if any >> further changes are necessary: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > [ISO-3166-2] >> > > > > > ISO, "ISO 3166-2:2007", >> > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/ >> > > > > > country_codes.htm#2012_iso3166-2>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Suggested: >> > > > > > [ISO-3166-2] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ISO, "Codes for the representation of names of >> countries >> > > > > > and their subdivisions - Part 2: Country >> subdivision >> > > > > > code", ISO 3166-2:2020, August 2020, >> > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/standard/72483.html>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > [ISO-3166-1alpha2] >> > > > > > ISO, "ISO 3166-1 decoding table", >> > > > > > < >> https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/iso- >> > > > > > 3166-1_decoding_table.htm>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > [ISO-3166-1alpha2] >> > > > > > ISO, "Decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes", >> > > > > > <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:pub:PUB500001:en >> >. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In light of the suggested updates to the titles (above) and to >> match the citation tags used, we further suggest updating the titles in the >> YANG reference clauses to match (note that these updates would occur in >> multiple places). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > "ISO 3166-2: 3166-2 subdivision code”; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "ISO 3166-1: Decoding table alpha-2 country code”; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > "ISO 3166-2: Codes for the representation of names of countries >> > > > > > and their subdivisions - Part 2: Country >> subdivision >> > > > > > code"; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "ISO 3166-1alpha2: Decoding table of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes”; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > NOTE: Throughout the the rest of the document, and in the YANG >> module, we see the following mixed use when discussing these specs. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ISO 3166-2 >> > > > > > ISO3166-1 alpha-2 vs. ISO3166-1 alpha 2 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We have updated these for consistency within the document as >> well as within the RFC Series. Please let us know any objections. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > f) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32 and >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please review the references [IEEE802.3-2018] and [IEEE-802.3]. >> This IEEE Standard was superseded by a new version in 2022 ( >> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436). Would you like to update >> this reference to use the most current version? (FYI - We have inserted a >> comment in the XML files with this updated information). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > [IEEE802.3-2018] >> > > > > > Committee, I. S., "IEEE 802.3-2018 - IEEE >> Standard for >> > > > > > Ethernet", August 2018, >> > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457469>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Original: >> > > > > > [IEEE-802.3] >> > > > > > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, >> "IEEE >> > > > > > Standard for Ethernet", 2018, >> > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457469/>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Perhaps: >> > > > > > [IEEE802.3-2022] >> > > > > > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", IEEE Std >> 802.3-2022, >> > > > > > DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9844436, July 2022, >> > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [IEEE-802.3] >> > > > > > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", IEEE Std >> 802.3-2022, >> > > > > > DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9844436, July 2022, >> > > > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9844436>. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > g) For draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please review the reference [nfv-framework]: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We found a more recent version of this ETSI Group Specification >> at the >> > > > > > following URL: >> > > > > > >> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/nfv/001_099/002/01.02.01_60/gs_nfv002v010201p.pdf >> . >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note that this appears to be Version 1.2.1 published in >> December 2014, while the current reference points to Version 1.1.1 >> published in October 2013. (Note: we were unable to find a URL for Version >> 1.1.1). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Should this reference be updated to use the more recent version >> from December 2014? (FYI - We have inserted a comment in the XML with this >> updated information if you’d like to adopt it). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 7) The following questions are about contact information: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > a) Jinyong, Jaehoon, and Liang: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We see a mix of the following forms throughout this cluster: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Jinyong Tim Kim vs. Jinyong (Tim) Kim >> > > > > > Jaehoon Paul Jeong vs. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong (past RFCs do not >> use parentheses) >> > > > > > Liang Frank Xia vs. Liang Xia >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We have updated to use the following consistently: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Jinyong Tim Kim >> > > > > > Jaehoon Paul Jeong >> > > > > > Liang Frank Xia >> > > > > > >> > > > > > And we have used only single first initial for each author in >> the header. Please review and update as desired. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > b) We note several authors/contributors have similar >> affiliations at the same university. >> > > > > > Please review if updates are needed for consistency. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering >> > > > > > Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering >> > > > > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering >> > > > > > >> > > > > > c) Liang: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We see slightly different addresses in different documents >> (e.g., the district being listed vs. not and the code being listed vs. >> not). We suggest updating to match the address published in RFC 9684 >> (please also keep question 7a in mind). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As published in RFC 9684: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Liang Xia (Frank) >> > > > > > Huawei Technologies >> > > > > > Yuhuatai District >> > > > > > 101 Software Avenue >> > > > > > Nanjing >> > > > > > Jiangsu, 210012 >> > > > > > China >> > > > > > Email: [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > d) Diego: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We see different addresses in these two documents. Please >> review these and update for consistency as necessary. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Diego R. Lopez - Telefonica I+D, Zurbaran, 12, Madrid, >> 28010, Spain, >> > > > > > Email: [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Diego R. Lopez - Telefonica I+D, Jose Manuel Lara, 9, >> Seville, >> > > > > > 41013, Spain. EMail: [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 8) Please review whether any of the notes in the documents >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content >> that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> > > > > > content that surrounds it" ( >> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). If no updates are >> necessary, please confirm that the text should remain as is. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 9) Some author comments are present in the XML files. Please >> confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding and >> delete the resolved comments. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 10) Please review the line lengths of yang trees and other >> figures to ensure they fit within the 69-character limit and make any >> updates necessary. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
