Hi, sorry for missing your earlier message. Thanks for the updated document. This looks good to me. I'll clear my DISCUSS shortly.
-MSK On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:31 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Murray, > Let me remind you of your action on this draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/ > > We authors believe that we addressed your comments as much as possible. > > I hope this draft will move forward through your review and lifting up > your block. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:50 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Murray, >> This revision has addressed your comments: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-25 >> >> I attach the revision letter. >> >> Could you check this revision? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul >> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:16 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24: Discuss >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ >>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I'd like to talk about the two SHOULDs in Section 1, the Introduction. >>> Normative guidance is normally in the meat of the document where the >>> protocol >>> material is being presented. Here, the Introduction says: >>> >>> * "the security controller SHOULD be able to request the DMS for NSFs >>> that have >>> the required security capabilities" >>> >>> * "describes the operations that SHOULD be performed by the Security >>> Controller >>> and the DMS via the Registration Interface using the defined model" >>> >>> I think you need a (probably small) section after Section 2 that lays >>> out these >>> normative requirements for controller behavior if that's what the intent >>> is >>> here. >>> >>> If the intent was just a plain old "should" and not a BCP 14-style >>> SHOULD, then >>> this is a pretty easy fix. But the language you're using here appears >>> to be >>> asserting that controllers are expected to behave a particular way. >>> >>> It also makes me wonder if this shouldn't be updating some other >>> document if >>> you're extending required behavior of an I2NSF component that was defined >>> someplace else. I looked around for a document defining "security >>> controller" >>> and couldn't find an obvious one, so I'm at a loss for what to suggest. >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> The shepherd writeup seems to have skipped answering part of the first >>> question: Why is this the right document status? >>> >>> I'm also confused by the answer to question 18. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I2nsf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>> >>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
