Hi Tom, Thanks for your quick confirmation. Linda, Since Tom has confimed the readiness of the CFI draft along with other reviewers, I think you can forward it to the IESG.
Thanks. Best Regards, Paul 2022년 8월 11일 (목) 오후 8:31, t petch <[email protected]>님이 작성: > On 08/08/2022 11:42, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 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. > > Yes, I have reviewed it and have no more comments > > Tom Petch > > > > 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 > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department Head Department of Computer Science and Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
