Hi Linda and Roman, As mentioned below in the difference between the version 13 (which Tom is satisfied with) and the latest version 19, the updates are minor from the updates of the prefix names of I2NSF Capability and Registration Interface. https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-13&doc_2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-19
Also, Figure 3 (NSF Capability Information) in this Registration Interface Draft is updated from Figure 2 (YANG Tree Diagram of Capabilities of Network Security Functions) in the I2NSF Capability Draft: - Figure 3 (NSF Capability Information) in this Registration Interface draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-19#page-6 - Figure 2 (YANG Tree Diagram of Capabilities of Network Security Functions) in the I2NSF Capability Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32#page-14 Therefore, I think we can submit the Registration Interface YANG Data Model Draft to the IESG. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:29 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > For your convenience, here is the difference between versions 13 and 19 of > the Registration Interface: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-13&doc_2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-19 > > I attach the diff html file, too. > > As you can see, there are some clarifications for the information model of > the Registration Interface, and > there is no major change in the YANG data model. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:55 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, >> As you said about the version 13 of I2NSF Registration Interface YANG >> Data Model last October, >> I am wondering whether the latest version 19 also satisfies you or not. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-19 >> >> Could you confirm the readiness of this version to move this draft >> forward for the submission to the IESG? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:54 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[email protected]> >>> Sent: 04 October 2021 15:17 >>> >>> Hi Tom, >>> Patrick and I have revised the Registration Interface YANG Data Model >>> Draft according to your comments: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-13 >>> >>> <tp> >>> >>> Looks good, >>> >>> Tom Petch >>> >>> I attach the revision letter. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 7:59 PM tom petch <[email protected]<mailto: >>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>> From: I2nsf <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on >>> behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> < >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: 15 September 2021 17:28 >>> >>> 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 Registration Interface YANG Data Model >>> Authors : Sangwon Hyun >>> Jaehoon Paul Jeong >>> Taekyun Roh >>> Sarang Wi >>> Jung-Soo Park >>> Filename : >>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-12.txt >>> Pages : 46 >>> Date : 2021-09-15 >>> >>> <tp> >>> I am confused about 'name'. This appears in the Information model in >>> s.4.1 as 'NSF name' but I cannot see that in the YANG. >>> >>> The YANG has capability-name in two places once described as 'Unique >>> name of this NSF's capability', the other as 'Unique name of this >>> registered NSF'. >>> >>> So how is an instance of an NSF identified? >>> >>> When you create a name, you create a namespace and I see it as good >>> practice to say something about that namespace, about its reach, the need >>> for uniqueness and so on, like 'The name MUST be unique within ...'. >>> >>> s.2 NMDA could so with a reference to RFC8342. >>> >>> s.5.2 >>> When you import an IETF module you must use the prefix that the module >>> itself specifies; for capability that is nsfcap. This also appears in the >>> examples. >>> >>> The examples use a port of 3000. This port number is registered with >>> IANA for HBCI. I do not know what HBCI is; do you? >>> >>> Tom Petch >>> >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document defines an information model and a YANG data model for >>> Registration Interface between Security Controller and Developer's >>> Management System (DMS) in the Interface to Network Security >>> Functions (I2NSF) framework to register Network Security Functions >>> (NSF) of the DMS with the Security Controller. The objective of >>> these information and data models is to support NSF capability >>> registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/ >>> >>> There is also an htmlized version available at: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-12 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-12 >>> >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I2nsf mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I2nsf mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>> >>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
