I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model for NSF Capability Registration
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-26

[Ballot 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.

[copied from my otherwise-resolved DISCUSS]

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.

[Ballot comment]
While the changes technically address my original DISCUSS position (thank you), I still do not think that the metrics really cover what an operator would like to know.
But I'm changing from DISCUSS to Abstain (a non-blocking position)

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I found this document harder to read, and this probably isn't quite the approach that I would have taken.  Specifically, why not just export the capabilities as a regular operational data model that returns the current capabilities?

A couple more specific comments/suggestions below.

(1) p 18, sec 5.2.  YANG Data Module

    rpc nsf-capability-registration {
      description
        "Description of the capabilities that the
          Security Controller requests to the DMS";
      input {
        container query-nsf-capability {
          description
            "Description of the capabilities to request";

I'm not a big fan of this approach, but if please be very clear in the description here for the input exactly what the input means.  E.g., does it restrict, or filter, the output that is returned?


(2) p 18, sec 5.2.  YANG Data Module

          uses i2nsfcap:nsf-capabilities;
          reference "RFC YYYY: I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model";
        //RFC Ed.: replace YYYY with actual RFC number of
        //draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model and remove this note.
        }
      }
      output {
        list nsf {
          key "nsf-name";
          description
            "Network access information of an NSF
              with the requested capabilities";

In the description here, please be very clear about exactly what capabilities are returned.  E.g., are they filtered by the input query?


(3) p 19, sec 5.2.  YANG Data Module

      output {
        container nsf {
          description
            "The update for the NSF";

Does this just return the current capabilities (which would probably be the obvious choice), or is this filtered relative to what was returned previously in the last nsf-capability-registration request?  If so, what happens if another nsf-capability-registration request has been made?  E.g., it feels like you are possibly holding on to some adhoc state between the RPC calls which may prove to be fragile, particularly if you have more than one client that is requesting the information.  I don't really understand why you don't have return the current capabilities, and perhaps define a YANG notification to notify clients if the capabilities have changed.



Nit level comments:

(4) p 6, sec 4.1.1.1.  NSF Specification

  temporarily, i.e., Random Access Memory (RAM).  The information
  consists of RAM maximum capacity and RAM speed.  The disk

I don't think that RAM speed is specified in the model, so perhaps this text should be updated.

Thanks,
Rob

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks for Brian Trammell for the TSVART review.

I have two comments and I think it will improve the document if addressed -

# Section 4.1.2 : it says -

      "Note that TCP is used as a transport layer protocol due to either NETCONF or RESTCONF. "

  I am not sure I understand this, seems like the sentence is incomplete. Specially when UDP, SCTP and DCCP is also included in the capabilities.. Why was TCP called out in this section alone. what am I missing?

# QUIC was not mentioned here, but then shouldn't is also have some text describing why it is not included like other i2nfs documents does now?

[Ballot discuss]
I support Lars' DISCUSS, and would have made some of his comments (RAM B/W, Disk size) be part of the discuss.

Many of these metrics seem somewhat irrelevant / are not the relevant ones that seem needed.

For example, it's doesn't really matter to me what e.g CPU a device has, what matters is "can it do X things in Y time?". If a device can pass the required number of packets per second, I don't care if does this using an Intel i9-13900KS, or a Juniper Express 5, or a Tomahawk 5, or a marshmallow.

The important metrics should be the PPS vs packet-size vs enables features, not the hardware that the device uses to do this.
For example, my server happily saturates 2x10GE links when bridging between them, but gets <1.2Gbps when doing IPSEC and DPI for DLP/URL scanning. The type of RAM/CPU/Disk is irrelevant for this discussion. If you *do* want to include hardware specs, there are much more relevant metrics, like the type of NICs, whether they support XDP, what off-loading they do (checksum, encap, etc),  DMA capabilities, etc.

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23

CC @larseggert

## Discuss

### Section 5.2, paragraph 21
```
        container cpu {
          description
            "The Central Processing Unit (CPU) specification of the NSF";
          leaf model {
            type string;
            description
              "The model name of the CPU used in the NSF.";
          }
```
There seems to be an assumption here that an NSF will have a single CPU. Modern systems can have several, and they can be of different models (e.g., ARM big.LITTLE). How does this model represent such systems?

### Section 5.2, paragraph 20
```
          leaf clock-speed {
            type uint16;
            units "MHz";
            description
              "The number of cycles the CPU executes per second,
                measured in MHz (MegaHertz).";
          }
```
First, CPUs execute instructions, not cycles, and different instructions require different amounts of cycles to execute. So I think you mean "clock speed" here. Second, modern CPUs dynamically vary their clock speed dynamically on short timescales. Is this supposed to capture the current clock speed or a (theoretical) maximum? What about features such as turbo-boost?

### Section 5.2, paragraph 19
```
          leaf cores {
            type uint8;
            description
              "The number of independent CPU in a single computing
                component.";
          }
```
A core is not the same as a CPU. Do you mean "cores per CPU" or "CPUs per chassis"? Or "cores per chassis"?

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 5.2, paragraph 20
```
          leaf speed {
            type uint32;
            units "MHz";
            description
              "The data transfer rate of the memory in MegaHertz (MHz).";
          }
```
Why does RAM bandwidth matter but not RAM latency? Also, modern packet-processing software is written to avoid going over the memory bus and is trying to execute in L3 as much as possible - so why does this matter?

### Section 5.2, paragraph 20
```
          leaf capacity {
            type uint32;
            units "MB";
            description
              "The disk or storage maximum capacity in Megabytes (MB).";
          }
```
This only scales to ~4000TB, which seems too small.

### Section 5.2, paragraph 22
```
        container bandwidth {
          description
            "Network bandwidth available on an NSF
              in the unit of Bps (Bytes per second)";
 
          leaf outbound {
            type uint64;
            units "Bps";
            description
              "The maximum outbound network bandwidth available to the
                NSF in bytes per second (Bps)";
          }
 
          leaf inbound {
            type uint64;
            units "Bps";
            description
              "The maximum inbound network bandwidth available to the
                NSF in bytes per second (Bps)";
          }
        }
      }
```
Is this per interface or the aggregate ingress/egress bandwidth across all interfaces?

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 5.2, paragraph 6
```
-      //RFC Ed.: replace occurences of XXXX with actual RFC number and
+      //RFC Ed.: replace occurrences of XXXX with actual RFC number and
+                            +
```

#### Section 5.2, paragraph 21
```
-              "The number of independent CPU in a single computing
+              "The number of independent CPUs in a single computing
+                                            +
```

### Uncited references

Uncited references: `[RFC7348]` and `[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]`.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated *especially* for the use of "input" and "output", i.e., I was about to ballot a DISCUSS but this does not fit the DISCUSS criteria), and some nits.

Special thanks to Linda Dunbar for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status.

The IPR section of the shepherd's write-up is *incorrect* as it claims that only 2 IPR disclosures have been done while there are 5 in the data tracker. At least, the IETF Last Call has a reference to the five disclosures, so this did not cause any problem.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

##

# COMMENTS (non blocking)

## IPR disclosure

Should the shepherd's write-up be updated ? See above.

## NMDA

I have often seen in abstracts and introductions sentences like `The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.`Did the author consider using the same sentence ?

## Section 4.1

Should NSF names include platform or version ? I.e., a NSF name such as "firewall-example" sounds like really broad.

## Section 4.1.2

s/an IP address /one or several IP address(es) / ?

## Section 5.1.2.1

I find the use of 'input' for the writable part and 'output' for the read-only part confusing... Should "status" be used rather than "output", esp. for a network function.

The "ip" cardinality is "?" while it should rather be "*".

Redefining "nsf-specification" rather than importing another module with similar capabilities would be easier. Also, "model" is wide open and underspecified.

## Section 5.2

Having a leaf named "ip" being an union with "inet:domain-name" seems really weird.

# NITS (non blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 1

s/It also describes the operations which SHOULD be performed/It also describes the operations that SHOULD be performed/ ?

[Ballot comment]

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated *especially* for the use of "input" and "output"), and some nits.

Special thanks to Linda Dunbar for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status.

The IPR section of the shepherd's write-up is *incorrect* as it claims that only 2 IPR disclosures have been done while there are 5 in the data tracker. At least, the IETF Last Call has a reference to the five disclosures, so this did not cause any problem.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

##

# COMMENTS (non blocking)

## IPR disclosure

Should the shepherd's write-up be updated ? See above.

## NMDA

I have often seen in abstracts and introductions sentences like `The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.`Did the author consider using the same sentence ?

## Section 4.1

Should NSF names include platform or version ? I.e., a NSF name such as "firewall-example" sounds like really broad.

## Section 4.1.2

s/an IP address /one or several IP address(es) / ?

## Section 5.1.2.1

I find the use of 'input' for the writable part and 'output' for the read-only part confusing... Should "status" be used rather than "output", esp. for a network function.

The "ip" cardinality is "?" while it should rather be "*".

Redefining "nsf-specification" rather than importing another module with similar capabilities would be easier. Also, "model" is wide open and underspecified.

## Section 5.2

Having a leaf named "ip" being an union with "inet:domain-name" seems really weird.

# NITS (non blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 1

s/It also describes the operations which SHOULD be performed/It also describes the operations that SHOULD be performed/ ?

[Ballot comment]
# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23
CC @jgscudder

## COMMENTS

### Section 3, misused RFC 2119 keyword

In "After an NSF is registered with Security Controller, some modifications on the capability of the NSF MAY be required later" I suspect you really meant "may" in the ordinary English sense as a synonym for "might" or "could", and not MAY in the RFC 2119 sense? If you really mean to express a protocol requirement here, please say more, otherwise please change to use one of the normal English options.

### Section 4.2, missing text, misused RFC 2119 keyword

The first paragraph of Section 4.2 ends in what appears to be a sentence fragment. It looks like something's missing there.

The second paragraph begins with "Security Controller MAY require some additional capabilities to serve the security service request from an I2NSF User, but none of the registered NSFs has the required capabilities." The same comment applies as for Section 3.

### Section 5.1.1 wrong reference

When you reference RFC 8431, did you mean RFC 8340?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
Prefix: i2nsfri
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-03-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm@ietf.org, i2nsf-chairs@ietf.org, i2nsf@ietf.org, ldunbar@huawei.com, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model for NSF Capability Registration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Interface to Network Security
Functions WG (i2nsf) to consider the following document: - 'I2NSF
Registration Interface YANG Data Model for NSF Capability
  Registration'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-03-16. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an information model and a YANG data model for
  the 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 file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5696/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3555/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3605/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5751/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5695/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8329: Framework for Interface to Network Security Functions (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability: Applicability of Interfaces to Network Security Functions to Network-Based Security Services (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

Shepherd Write-up for I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model (draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-21)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Type: proposed standard
is it listed on front page: yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

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.

Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?

This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other WGs.
There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into this document.  There are reviewers from IAB, and other areas experts providing the comments. The authors made many revisions to address the comments.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The data models described in this document are to support NSF capability registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface.
An open source implementation around this work is found at https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework.  It has participated in a number of IETF Hackathons.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (dunbar.ll@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (rdd@cert.org) is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd. All comments arising from the reviews have been addressed.
The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

Not required, but the contents of the document will be shared with Ops Area Directorates.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP 78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP policies.
Two IPRs have been disclosed since June in 2019:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Two IPRs were disclosed against this document in June 2019 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm)
There was no issue about these two IPRs to let the IETF community use the technology in this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

Good. There has been review and supporting positions across the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

None known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Prefix: nsfreg
Reference: RFC XXXX

// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
    // this note
       
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No such section, no such review

Shepherd Write-up for I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model (draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-21)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Type: proposed standard
is it listed on front page: yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

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.

Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?

This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other WGs.
There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into this document.  There are reviewers from IAB, and other areas experts providing the comments. The authors made many revisions to address the comments.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The data models described in this document are to support NSF capability registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface.
An open source implementation around this work is found at https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework.  It has participated in a number of IETF Hackathons.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (dunbar.ll@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (rdd@cert.org) is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd. All comments arising from the reviews have been addressed.
The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

Not required, but the contents of the document will be shared with Ops Area Directorates.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP 78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP policies.
Two IPRs have been disclosed since June in 2019:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Two IPRs were disclosed against this document in June 2019 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm)
There was no issue about these two IPRs to let the IETF community use the technology in this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

Good. There has been review and supporting positions across the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

None known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Prefix: nsfreg
Reference: RFC XXXX

// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
    // this note
       
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No such section, no such review

Shepherd Write-up for I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model (draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-16)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Type: proposed standard
is it listed on front page: yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

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.

Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?

This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other WGs.
There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into this document. 

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The data models described in this document are to support NSF capability registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface.
An open source implementation around this work is found at https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework.  It has participated in a number of IETF Hackathons.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (dunbar.ll@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (rdd@cert.org) is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd. All comments arising from the reviews have been addressed.
The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

Not required, but the contents of the document will be shared with Ops Area Directorates.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP 78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP policies.
Two IPRs have been disclosed since June in 2019:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Two IPRs were disclosed against this document in June 2019 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm)
There was no issue about these two IPRs to let the IETF community use the technology in this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

Good. There has been review and supporting positions across the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

None known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Prefix: nsfreg
Reference: RFC XXXX

// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
    // this note
       
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No such section, no such review

Shepherd Write-up for I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model (draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-16)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Type: proposed standard
is it listed on front page: yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
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.

Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?
This document is specifically written for I2NSF WG as one of the milestones specified by the I2NSF Charter. This document is not considered by any other WGs.
There was nothing exceptional in the WG processing for this document.
There was careful debate resulting in merging contents from other drafts into this document. 

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

The data models described in this document are to support NSF capability registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface.
An open source implementation around this work is found at https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework.  It has participated in a number of IETF Hackathons.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Linda Dunbar (dunbar.ll@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw (rdd@cert.org) is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This revision and the previous revision were reviewed by the document shepherd. All comments arising from the reviews have been addressed.
The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the WG is small, but there were a good number of sound reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
Not required, but the contents of the document will be shared with Ops Area Directorates.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
The authors have been explicitly reminded of their responsibilities under BCP 78 and 79. By placing their names as authors of the document they have acknowledged those BCPs and agreed to comply with the terms of the IETF's IP policies.
Two IPRs have been disclosed since June in 2019:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Two IPRs were disclosed against this document in June 2019 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm)
There was no issue about these two IPRs to let the IETF community use the technology in this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
Good. There has been review and supporting positions across the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
None known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.
No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Prefix: nsfreg
Reference: RFC XXXX

// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
        // this note
       
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Name: ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-reg-interface

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No such section, no such review