Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-10
review-ietf-nmop-terminology-10-secdir-lc-orman-2025-02-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nmop-terminology |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-02-13 | |
| Requested | 2025-01-30 | |
| Requested by | Mohamed Boucadair | |
| Authors | Nigel Davis , Adrian Farrel , Thomas Graf , Qin Wu , Chaode Yu | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-02-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -07
by Hilarie Orman
(diff)
Genart Early review of -07 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Opsdir Early review of -07 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Iotdir Early review of -07 by Carsten Bormann (diff) Intdir Early review of -07 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff) Iotdir Last Call review of -12 by Carsten Bormann (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Hilarie Orman (diff) |
|
| Comments |
You kindly reviewed an early version of the document. Your review was very useful and triggered changes that were implemented by the authors. Now that the document is in the WGLC, we would like to double check that your issues were adequately handled. Of course, we welcome new comments and issues that you might have. Thank you |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Hilarie Orman |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-nmop-terminology by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/0RZ3xT_MhfDRqs71Hqd7ygIGhjA | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-02-11 |
review-ietf-nmop-terminology-10-secdir-lc-orman-2025-02-11-00
Do not be alarmed. I generated this review of this document as part
of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF
documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written
with the intent of improving security requirements and considerations
in IETF drafts. Comments 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.
Minor grammar issue re the terms Network Telemetry, Network Analytics
and Network Observability. These are "processes", and I think
"Network Analysis" and "Network Observation" are better terms for
processes. For telemetry, the definition seems ambiguous as to
whether is is a process or the data collected by the process. If it
is a process, then the title should be "Network data collection" or
something similar.
"System: An assembly of components that exhibits some behavior." How
about simply "a collection of components in a network"? It's more
specific and introduces no undefined terms.
"Value: ... on a continuous variable (e.g., an analog measurement)"
The grammar is wrong, and the "continuous variable" terminology is,
as before, just wrong.
"Not all Changes are noteworthy (i.e., they do not have Relevance)."
That comment should be part of the section defining "Relevance".
"Event: The variation in Value of a Characteristic of a Resource at a
distinct moment in time (i.e., the period is negligible)." What
is the point of this? Any variation is a measured value, and a
measurement takes place at "a distinct moment in time."
"While a State may be observed at a specific moment in time, it
is actually determined by summarizing measurement over time in
a process sometimes called State compression." I don't think
that's the normal meaning of "state compression".
This version of the document is much improved over -07, and it doesn't
seem to have any negative security implications.
Hilarie