Hi! > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 12:16 PM > To: Rafa Marín López <r...@um.es>; Gabriel Lopez <gab...@um.es>; Fernando > Pereniguez-Garcia <fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es>; Roman Danyliw > <r...@cert.org>; Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com>; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow- > protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > > Greetings Authors and *ADs, > > *ADs - Please respond to a) and b) below: > > a) Please review and approve of the changes from “ipsec-protocol-parameters” > to “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the > diff > file below. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html
No problem. > b) Please confirm the following: > > >> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text does > >> not exactly match what appears on > >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. > >> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems > >> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. > >> —> > > > > [Authors] Yes, this is correct. No problem. There are no RPCs in this case so the last paragraph isn't needed. Regards, Roman > Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files as requested. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-lastdiff.html (last > version > to this one) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates > you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > above prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Jun 21, 2021, at 8:49 AM, Rafa Marín López <r...@um.es> wrote: > > > > Dear Paloma: > > > > We have just found this errata in the updated reference > > > > [ITU-T.X.690] > > > > "Recommendation > > > > > > International Telecommunication Untion, "Information > > Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic > > Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and > > Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T X.690", > > August 2015. > > Recommendation > > X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. > > > > > > > > Best Regards. > > > >> El 18 jun 2021, a las 18:01, Rafa Marin-Lopez <r...@um.es> escribió: > >> > >> Dear Alanna: > >> > >> Please see my comments inline > >> > >>> El 16 jun 2021, a las 21:29, Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com> escribió: > >>> > >>> Authors and *ADs, > >>> > >>> *ADs - Please review and approve the changes from > >>> “ipse-protocol-parameters” to “Ipsec-protocol-params” in Sections 5.1.2, > 5.2.1, 5.3.1, and 5.3.3 in the diff file below. > >>> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-ad-diff.html > >>> > >>> Additionally, please confirm the following: > >>> > >>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text > >>>>> does not exactly match what appears on > >>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. > >>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems > >>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. > >>>>> —> > >>>> > >>>> [Authors] Yes, this is correct. > >>> > >>> Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. > >> > >> Thank you very much for your effort. > >>> > >>> We have one additional question: > >>> > >>> <!--[rfced] RFC 2247 is listed as a normative reference to the YANG module > >>> in Section 5.2.3, but it is not referenced in the module. May we remove > >>> it as a reference, or where should it be cited?--> > >> > >> Yes, please remove the reference. It is not used. > >>> > >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > >>> > >>> The relevant diff files are posted here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html (comprehensive > >>> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-auth48diff.html > >>> (all AUTH48 changes) > >>> > >>> > >>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > >> > >> I have been checking this and I have a comment due to the new name of the > document. > >> > >> The three YANG modules still have: > >> > >> reference > >> "RFC > >> XXXX: 9061: > >> Software-Defined Networking > >> (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection.”; > >> > >> > >> Shouldn’t they be ? > >> > >> reference > >> "RFC > >> XXXX: 9061: A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on > >> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)."; > >> > >> Best Regards and thank you. > >> > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> RFC Editor/ap > >>> > >>>> On Jun 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Gabriel Lopez <gab...@um.es> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Diego. > >>>> > >>>>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez > <diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com> escribió: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder whether in order to avoid the > stacking of hyphenated qualifiers we could use: > >>>>> > >>>>> A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection based on > >>>>> Software-Defined Networking (SDN) > >>>> > >>>> The title seems ok to me. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, Gabi. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Be goode, > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" > >>>>> > >>>>> Dr Diego R. Lopez > >>>>> Telefonica I+D > >>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/ > >>>>> > >>>>> e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com > >>>>> Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > >>>>> ---------------------------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez" <i2nsf- > boun...@ietf.org on behalf of r...@um.es> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear I2NSF WG members: > >>>>> > >>>>> We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible > change in the title: > >>>>> > >>>>> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —> > >>>>> > >>>>> A YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based > >>>>> IPsec Flow Protection > >>>>> > >>>>> We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any > thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> De: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > >>>>>> Asunto: Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 > >>>>>> <draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > >>>>>> Fecha: 10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST > >>>>>> Para: r...@um.es, gab...@um.es, fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es > >>>>>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, i2nsf-...@ietf.org, > >>>>>> i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org, ynir.i...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Authors, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs > >>>>>> containing YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model > for...", for example: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RFC 8022 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Management > >>>>>> RFC 7407 - A YANG Data Model for SNMP Configuration > >>>>>> RFC 7317 - A YANG Data Model for System Management > >>>>>> RFC 7277 - A YANG Data Model for IP Management > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? > >>>>>> This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast > >>>>>> rather than "at the same time". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Original: > >>>>>> Therefore, the NSF will only have support for IPsec while key > >>>>>> management functionality is moved to the I2NSF Controller. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the > >>>>>> .xml file for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. > >>>>>> Please review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they > >>>>>> need to be addressed. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Note that the YANG modules have been updated > >>>>>> per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] In Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, should "rw enable?" > >>>>>> and "leaf enable" be "rw enabled?" (as used in RFC 8340 ad most > >>>>>> published RFCs) and "leaf enabled" (as used in most published RFCs)? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Original: > >>>>>> rw enable? boolean > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> leaf enable { > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] RFC 2560 is referenced in the YANG module in > >>>>>> Section 5.2.3 but is not mentioned anywhere else in the text. May > >>>>>> we add it as a Normative Reference and to the introductory text in > Section 5.2.3? > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] In tree diagram in Section 5.3.1, the two lines > >>>>>> that include "ipsec-protocol-parameters" are one character too > >>>>>> long to fit in the space allowed in the txt output file. Please > >>>>>> let us know how to adjust this so that it will fit. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the Security Considerations section, the text > >>>>>> does not exactly match what appears on > >>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>. > >>>>>> Paragraph 5 of the YANG boilerplate text is missing. This seems > >>>>>> intentional, but we'd like to confirm that this is correct. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The following reference has been superseded by a > >>>>>> 2021 version. Would you like for it to be updated? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Original: > >>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690] > >>>>>> "Recommendation ITU-T X.690", August 2015. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2021 version: > >>>>>> [ITU-T.X.690] > >>>>>> International Telecommunication Union, "Information > >>>>>> technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic > >>>>>> Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and > >>>>>> Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation > >>>>>> X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, February 2021. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Should "SaaS" be expanded as "Software as a Service" > >>>>>> or "Storage as a Service"? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Original: > >>>>>> For example, SD-WAN technologies are providing dynamic and > >>>>>> on-demand VPN connections between branch offices, or between > >>>>>> branches and SaaS cloud services. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion > >>>>>> of the online Style Guide > >>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > >>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. > >>>>>> --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/jm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Updated 2021/06/10 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>>>> -------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed > >>>>>> and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > >>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before > >>>>>> providing your approval. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Planning your review > >>>>>> --------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * RFC Editor questions > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > >>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > >>>>>> follows: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > >>>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree > >>>>>> to changes submitted by your coauthors. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Content > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > >>>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > >>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > >>>>>> - contact information > >>>>>> - references > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Copyright notices and legends > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > >>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – > >>>>>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Semantic markup > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements > >>>>>> of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that > >>>>>> <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > >>>>>> <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Formatted output > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > >>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, > >>>>>> is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > >>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Submitting changes > >>>>>> ------------------ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the > >>>>>> following, using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this > >>>>>> message need to see your changes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of > >>>>>> changes in this format > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OLD: > >>>>>> old text > >>>>>> > >>>>>> NEW: > >>>>>> new text > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an > >>>>>> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes > >>>>>> that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, > >>>>>> deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about > >>>>>> stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not > require approval from a stream manager. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Approving for publication > >>>>>> -------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s > >>>>>> tating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY > >>>>>> ALL’ > >>>>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Files > >>>>>> ----- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The files are available here: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.xml > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.html > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.pdf > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-diff.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061-xmldiff1.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your > >>>>>> own diff files of the XML. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.original.v2v3.xml > >>>>>> > >>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > >>>>>> updates > >>>>>> only: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>>> ----------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RFC Editor > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>>> RFC9061 (draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Title : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow > Protection > >>>>>> Author(s) : R. Marin-Lopez, G. Lopez-Millan, F. > >>>>>> Pereniguez-Garcia > >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Linda Dunbar, Yoav Nir > >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD > >>>>> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of > >>>>> Computer Science-University of Murcia > >>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain > >>>>> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: r...@um.es > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, > puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo > de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, > queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin > autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha > recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique > inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. > >>>>> > >>>>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and > confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity > named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in > error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have > received this communication in error and then delete it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu > >>>>> destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial > >>>>> e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é > >>>>> vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a > >>>>> leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode > >>>>> estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta > >>>>> mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente > >>>>> por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> I2nsf mailing list > >>>>> I2nsf@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > >>>> > >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Gabriel López Millán > >>>> Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones > >>>> University of Murcia Spain > >>>> Tel: +34 868888504 > >>>> Fax: +34 868884151 > >>>> email: gab...@um.es > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD > >> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) > >> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia > >> 30100 Murcia - Spain > >> Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: r...@um.es > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> I2nsf mailing list > >> I2nsf@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD > > Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) > > Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia > > 30100 Murcia - Spain > > Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: r...@um.es > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
