Hi, If I can shed a little bit more of light on the story, let me say the original capability model was based on a policy expression calculus suitable for manipulating high-level policy expressions, but not for a network management protocol. The data model evolved in parallel and, at a certain point, overtook the original information model. A couple of proposals for realignment were made, but they were reflected on the data model and not totally on the information model.
Given the historical context Sue mentions, the information model was implicitly withdrawn, having served its purpose of kickstarting the data model. Be goode, -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ---------------------------------- On 21/09/2020, 21:53, "I2nsf on behalf of Susan Hares" <i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of sha...@ndzh.com> wrote: Eric: Just a little bit of history - some of the past ADs suggested that informational models were optional. Therefore, pushing forward with the information was difficult. In this case, the information model was helpful in distilling the key components for a capability model. If you wish additional history, please let me know. Susan Hares -----Original Message----- From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 5:19 AM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-mo...@ietf.org; i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org; i2nsf@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar; dunbar...@gmail.com Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. While I do appreciate that a data model (this document) is derived from an information model, I am concerned that the information model is an expired draft whereas I would expect the information model being published first. Else, what is the use of the information model ? What was the WG reasoning behind 'putting the cart before the horses' ? My concern is that by publishing the YANG model, there is nearly no way to change the information model anymore. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points but also a couple of blocking DISCUSS points around IPv6. They should be easy to resolve. I would hate to have NSF having basic IPv6 capabilities that cannot be configured by using the YANG model of this document. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 4.1 -- It is quite common to apply conditions based on the whole IPv6 extension header chain (i.e., presence of destination option header or wrong order of the extension headers). Why is there no such capabilities in this YANG module ? The only one is 'identity ipv6-next-header' that applies only to the first extension header. What is the difference between 'identity ipv6-protocol' and 'identity ipv6-next-header' ? There is no 'protocol' field in the IPv6 header. While fragmented IPv4 packets are part of the conditions ('identity ipv4-fragment-flags'), there is no equivalent in IPv6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Section 4.1 -- May be am I misreading the YANG tree, but, I see no 'sctp-capability' in the set of 'condition-capabilities' (even is SCTP is not heavily used). Is there a real reason to have two related containers ? generic-nsf-capabilities and advanced-nsf-capabilities. Why not a single one ? Unsure what is meant by 'range' in 'identity range-ipv*-address'. Usually, addresses are filtered/matched by using a prefix length and not a range (that is difficult to implement in hardware). Is there a reason why ICMP(v6) codes are not part of the conditions ? _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
