Hi
Yoshi,
Here is the revision of I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-17
I attach a revision letter to explain how Patrick and I have addressed your comments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-17
I attach a revision letter to explain how Patrick and I have addressed your comments.
Please read our responses from page 29 in the revision letter.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 4:38 PM Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
Review result: Almost Ready
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
Summary: I think this document is almost ready for publication, but it will be
better to check the following minor points.
1: Page 48
We don't need to support header length for TCP while supporting total length
for UDP? I am wondering if we want to support TCP option type here.
2: Page 50:
list total-length {
key "start end";
leaf start {
type uint32;
description
"Start udp total length for a range match.";
}
leaf end {
type uint32;
must '. >= ../start' {
error-message
"The end hop limit MUST be equal or greater than
the start hop limit.";
}
description
"End udp total length for a range match.";
}
-> is this error message correct?
3: Page 51
leaf-list verification-tag {
type uint32;
description
"The security policy rule according to
udp total length.";
reference
"RFC 4960: Stream Control Transmission Protocol
- Verification Tag";
}
-> Is this description correct?
-> In my understanding, verification tag would be random values.
I am wondering how we utilize it.
4: Page 52
We don't need packet type for DCCP while supporting chunk types for SCTP?
5: Page 70
<tcp>
<destination-port-number>
<start>5060</start>
<start>5061</end>
</destination-port-number>
</tcp>
-> should be "<end>5061</end>" ?
6: Page 72
<tcp>
<destination-port-number>
<start>80</start>
<end>80</end>
</destination-port>
<destination-port-number>
<start>443</start>
<end>443</end>
</destination-port>
</tcp>
-> should be "</destination-port-number>" instead of "</destination-port>" ?
--
Yoshi
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
Attachment:
Revision-Letter-for-draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-17-2022-01-22.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
