Hi Donald, I have reflected your comments on page 5 in the revised I-D as follows: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23
The efficient and flexible provisioning of network functions by a Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) system supports rapid deployment of newly developed functions. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 7:42 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > Here is the revision of CFI with your comments: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23 > > Patrick and I have reflected your comments on the revision, and > I attach the revision letter. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:40 AM t petch <[email protected]> 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. >> >> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
