From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[email protected]>
Sent: 15 September 2021 17:50

Hi Tom,
Here is the revision to reflect your comments on the Consumer-Facing Interface 
Data Model:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-15

Also, here is the revision for synchronization with the other data model I-Ds 
on the
Registration Interface Data Model:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-12

I attach the revision letters.

<tp>
I like the new names for transport and application!

Two references need adding to the I-D as they are in the YANG module
RFC4960
RFC8335

I notice that the modelling of action is different compared to nsf-facing.  
This may be deliberate in which case no problem but here log-action is not 
derived from action whereas in nsf-facing it is.  I realise that this has 
primary and secondary action which nsf-facing does not.

grouping location group
a similar model in capability has a reference to RFC8805 - would that help here?

container period
 when frequency != 'only-once'
would seem to exclude start-time and end-time but the description of 
enum only-once
talks of start-time and end-time which seems a contradiction

leaf packet-rate-threshold
leaf byte-rate-threshold
could do with units; I notice that the rule name in the example is packets per 
second.
  Is uint32 enough for bytes per second? May be.

Tom Petch


Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul and Patrick

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:45 PM tom petch 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: 29 August 2021 11:26

Hi Tom,
I will address your comments on the synchronization for Consumer-Facing 
Interface Data Model with other Interface Data Models.

<tp>
Paul

Some more thoughts on consumer-facing

References in the module are good but they need to be in the I-D references as 
well  I think that you need to add
RFC768
RFC792
RFC793
RFC3261
RFC4340
RFC4443
rfc793bis
IANA ICMP parameters (URL)
IANA ICMPv6 parameters (URL)

In the YANG module http: needs to be https: (I have seen an AD raise a DISCUSS 
on this!)

continent
I am curious about the source for this.  In the world of natural history, 
Oceania is very different from Australasia which presumably you treat as one; a 
reference would be good for this choice of continents (there is an 
international standard. for natural history)

inet:ipv4-address and inet:ipv6address, as opposed to the nozone variants,  
include the zone after the address per se.  Is the use of this deliberate?

container period{
lacks a space

Security Considerations
YANG Guidelines specifies a template for  these with references which I think 
should be followed.

Tom Petch

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:57 PM tom petch 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>
 wrote:
From: I2nsf 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>
 on behalf of 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>
Sent: 22 August 2021 01:58

I do like consistency as I have said before and this I-D seems out of line with 
others which for me makes it more error prone for users, implementers.

The other I-D of the four (capability, nsf facing, monitoring,) use identity of 
transport-protocl, application-protocol) which seems fine.  This does not, 
using layer-4-protocol, layer-7-protocol.  I think that this should come in 
line.  In passing, I think that layer 7 is not right - the protocols are layers 
5 and 6 and 7.

Also, for the application protocols, this adds nat, drops sftp imap compared to 
capability which I take as my base reference and perhaps should include those 
two.

This I-D lacks an identity event but derives from security-event-type four 
identity which seem close to but not the same as content-security-control in 
capability and nsf-facing; and the -type suffix seems redundant.

I am still digesting the latest revisions.

Tom Petch

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Interface to Network Security Functions WG of 
the IETF.

        Title           : I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
        Authors         : Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong
                          Chaehong Chung
                          Tae-Jin Ahn
                          Rakesh Kumar
                          Susan Hares
        Filename        : draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-14.txt
        Pages           : 60
        Date            : 2021-08-21

Abstract:
   This document describes an information model and a YANG data model
   for the Consumer-Facing Interface between an Interface to Network
   Security Functions (I2NSF) User and Security Controller in an I2NSF
   system in a Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) environment.  The
   information model defines various types of managed objects and the
   relationship among them needed to build the interface.  The
   information model is based on the "Event-Condition-Action" (ECA)
   policy model defined by a capability information model for I2NSF, and
   the data model is defined for enabling different users of a given
   I2NSF system to define, manage, and monitor security policies for
   specific flows within an administrative domain.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-14

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-14


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Reply via email to