John and Diego I agree the second one is better. Sue Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com> Date: 6/16/2016 2:07 AM (GMT-05:00) To: John Strassner <straz...@gmail.com> Cc: I2NSF@ietf.org, "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xiali...@huawei.com>, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>, Dacheng Zhang <dacheng....@alibaba-inc.com>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] questions about some terminologies defined by draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00
In order to avoid using the defined term (even partially) into the definition I’d go for the second one… Be goode, On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:05 , John Strassner <straz...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Dacheng, I agree that "I2NSF system" is not well defined. Your definition is better, but it should apply for all NSFs (not 'the NSF'). In addition, the Capability Layer is not an abstraction layer, it a simply a collection of abstractions (the capabilities). So how about: Capability Layer: Defines the set of capabilities available to the Controller for the set of NSFs that the Controller manages. or Capability Layer: Defines the set of features available to the Controller for the set of NSFs that the Controller manages. regards, John On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Dacheng Zhang <dacheng....@alibaba-inc.com> wrote: I think I agree with Frank. The confusion is caused by the 'I2NSF system’. Maybe we should change the definition in the terminology draft to Capability Layer: Defines an abstraction layer that exposes a set of capabilities of the NSF? 发件人: I2nsf <i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xiali...@huawei.com> 日期: 2016年6月16日 星期四 上午11:47 至: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com>, John Strassner <straz...@gmail.com>, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>, "DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA (diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com)" <diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com> 抄送: "I2NSF@ietf.org" <I2NSF@ietf.org> 主题: [I2nsf] 答复: questions about some terminologies defined by draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00 Hi Linda, Frankly, I don’t see the essential difference for the meaning of terminology “capability” between them. We just need to make some modification in two places to keep consistence. We can do it during the update of I2NSF terminology draft. B.R. Frank 发件人: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Linda Dunbar 发送时间: 2016年6月15日 23:40 收件人: John Strassner; Susan Hares; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA (diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com) 抄送: I2NSF@ietf.org 主题: [I2nsf] questions about some terminologies defined by draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00 Dear Authors: The term “Capability Layer” defined by the “draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00” carries different meaning than the “Capability Layer” used by the I2NSF charter. “draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00”: Capability: Defines a set of features that are available from a managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Capability Layer: Defines an abstraction layer that exposes a set of capabilities of the I2NSF system. I2NSF Charter: I2NSF will specify interfaces at two functional levels for the control and monitoring of network security functions: The I2NSF Capability Layer specifies how to control and monitor NSFs at a functional implementation level. The term "Functional Implementation" is used to emphasize that the rules (for control and monitor) of NSFs have to be implementable by most NSFs. I2NSF will standardize a set of interfaces by which a security controller can invoke, operate, and monitor NSFs. The I2NSF Service Layer defines how clients' security policies may be expressed to a security controller. The controller implements its policies according to the various capabilities provided by the I2NSF Capability Layer. The I2NSF Service Layer also allows the client to monitor the client specific policies. If we use the definitions by the “draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-00”, we should create a different terminology to represent the “South bound Interface” between Controller and NSF. Thanks, Linda _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- regards, John -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ---------------------------------- Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
