On 03/08/2022 17:41, t petch wrote:
On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Sue,
Thank you very much for the offer.
The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom
hasn't sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.
Weelll, probably as satisfied as I am going to get.
Looking through the e-mails, I found a most helpful one from March
addressing Ben's comments on capabiity (yes, not nsf, not cfi).
Paul posted 25mar22 asking Paul Wouters' (who had inherited Ben's
DISCUSS) whether or not capability-29 addressed the DISCUSS.
I cannot see any response to that on the I2NSF list. There is a reply
relating to nsf-monitoring 20apr22 but nothing I can see on capability.
Since the approval was announced I infer that the DISCUSS was amended
but am curious why it did not make it to the list.
The subject matter cuts across a number of I-D and so IMHO is relevant
to consumer-facing (or customer-facing as I am wont to call it:-(
Tom Petch
I have reviewed cfi (customer facing interface-dm)-22 and compared some
of it with capability-32. I have not - but hope to - compare against
nsf-facing; nor have I re-read all the posts to the list but will.
I do think that cfi is now in much better shape. I do see capability as
the key, the base, set of definitions against which the others should be
judged. capability says whether or not the box can do it, the others
tell you how to do it.
With that in mind, I am unconvinced about the response to my comments
about icmp. The treatment is different. capability deals in
icmpv4/icmpv6, type/code; cfi deals in echo/echo-reply which is the sort
of user interface I am used to and would expect a security practitioner
to be familiar with so some words about the mapping, referring to the
IANA website for all the detail, could help users. I would put that in
the body of the text not the YANG module
Likewise, cfi has primary and secondary action which makes a lot of
sense but what is the capability that makes that possible? capability
has ingress-action, egress-action, default-action which seems a
different axis to me. Again, some words about how the two relate could
help, in the body of the document.
Again continent is present in cfi but not in capability. Can a user
tell if the capability is present? I expect not; as ever, worth a note.
signature-set and signature-type sound the same but seem different. This
is an aspect of security that I am not familiar with, at least not in
those terms.
Finally, there are some minor editorial glitches.
RFC8075 I see in the YANG module; it needs adding to the I-D References.
page 17 text version last sentence I cannot parse; perhaps a missing
preposition
the two rate-limit objects could do with units - I note that they are
present in the examples
page 55 text version [STIX] looks like an XML anchor but YANG modules
must be plain text.
Tom Petch
Linda
From: Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC
for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
Linda:
I will review the document by Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of
the document. Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not
addressed?
Cheers, Sue
From: I2nsf <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
I2NF WG,
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive
due to lack of support and some LC comments not properly addressed.
There appeared to be limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0>
To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for
publication is needed.
We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially
the people who are not the authors.
Thank you
Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
