Hi Stu,
Thank you. I just replied to Adam’s mail about the figure.
Thanks,
Nagendra
From: Card, Stu <stu.card@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 5:13 PM
To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <naikumar@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-drip-reqs.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-drip-reqs.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, tm-rid@xxxxxxxx <tm-rid@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-drip-reqs-12Nagendra --
Thanks for the review, both your kind words and your identification of points potentially requiring clarification!
Med addressed your first point concisely.
Adam is at this moment furiously banging on the keyboard, attempting to simplify and clarify our ASCII art, to address your second.
-- Stu
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 5:54 PM Nagendra Nainar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Nagendra Nainar
Review result: Has Nits
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706.
Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
Version: draft-ietf-drip-reqs-12
Overall Summary:
This draft is an informational track defining the terminologies and listing the
requirements for DRIP.
Overall this is a well-written document explaining the requirements and the
rationale behind the same. This document does not propose any new standards or
extensions to the existing standards and so does not introduce any operational
challenges or gaps as such. I am choosing "Has Nits" only to check if the
authors can address any of the below observations. Otherwise, it is ready.
Few observations below:
==> Is there any reference that you can add to the below-mentioned community
documents?.
"On this and other terminological issues, to encourage comprehension
necessary for adoption of DRIP by the intended user community, that
community's norms are respected herein, and definitions are quoted in
cases where they have been found in that community's documents."
==> Based on the below DRI suffice, I assume that the below one is defined by
this document.
"AAA
Attestation, Authentication, Authorization, Access Control,
Accounting, Attribution, Audit, or any subset thereof (uses differ
by application, author, and context). (DRIP)"
AAA is common terminology used for "Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting". While they both seem to be similar, is there any need to use a
different term to differentiate DRIP-AAA from the traditional AAA?.
==> The text below Figure 3 appears to mention UA-GCS, UA-Internet, and
GCS-Internet, but this is not clear in the figure.
"Figure 3 illustrates Network RID information flows. Only two of the
three typically wireless links shown involving the UAS (UA-GCS, UA-
Internet, and GCS-Internet) need exist"
Thanks,
Nagendra
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
