Subject: [I2nsf] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 22:29:22 -0800

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[S6.1.5; comment]

* Possibly this set of "interface-state"s is sufficient for security
  monitoring, but I'm wondering if any of the additional "oper-status"
  states from RFC 8343 would be of interest (maybe, maybe not).

[S8; comment]

* Anywhere an inet:ip-address-no-zone is used I'm curious as to whether
  or not an optional associated interface might want to also be present.

  For example, in the case of "i2nsf-traffic-flows" there is no ingress
  nor egress interface.  It's possible that with knowledge of the routing
  at the time the information was captured the ingress/egress interfaces
  could be reconstructed but that might also prove difficult unless that
  information is separately retained.

  This applies to the uses as well where the interface in question might
  want to be noted, either because it could change in the future or perhaps
  because an attack arrives via an unexpected interface.

[S8; question]

* Are all three "leaf language" definitions necessary, or can this be
  something shared, defined only once somewhere else?

---

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:38:10 +0900

Hi Erik,
Here is the revised draft reflecting your comments:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-15

I attach the revision letter to explain how the revision
is done by Patrick and me for your comments.

[Review by Erik Kline and Response by Authors] starts
from page 20 in the revision letter.

Thanks for your valuable comments and help.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:29 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>