Rakesh:
Thank you for the comments on the draft. I believe your comments to be technical in nature. If I am mistaken, please let me know. The original drafts for the use cases were: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zarny-i2nsf-data-center-use-cases/ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase-02 We compiled this to provide a summarization of these cases. The first thing to check is whether your ideas were in these original drafts. If they are, and you think it should be emphasized in the summary – please indicate the text you think should be included in the summary and why. This feedback is really useful as due to my struggles with security area reviews – this document did not enter WG LC as requested. Here’s my understanding of your work. On Service provider: Ke Wang, Xiaojun, and Minpeng Q China Mobile)i in draft-qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase-02 suggested the provider based: residential use and enterprise use. China Mobile suggested the mobile use case in their original discussions. Myo Zarny (Goldman Sachs), S. Magee (F5), Nicholas Leymann (DT) , and suggested the data center use cases for data centers. On Enterprise, for branch and Campus we should get more detail on the threat management policies. Please check draft-pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases-00, but I am not sure there is a match. I think the zarny draft covered most of the issues listed, but you should look at this as well. If you think your text is not in these document, but you’d like to create it. Please write-up the text and send it to list or put it in a draft. If you just send it to the list, I’ll include your comments in my slides at IETF-95. Thanks for reviewing the document, Sue Hares From: Rakesh Kumar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:38 PM To: Linda Dunbar; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Rakesh Kumar; [email protected] Subject: draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt Dear authors, I have read the draft "draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt”. It is very well written and identifies the most common problems due to lack of standard interfaces. It also list “Access Networks” (Residential/Cloud/Mobile) and “Cloud Data centers” as the use-cases. This is good start but I think it would be nice to list other major drivers as well since use-cases would tell us whether interfaces we develop in here are widely applicable. Can we do something like this for use-cases (section 4)? These are just ideas to start a discussion. 1. Service provider use-cases * Access use-cases * Residential * Interface for parental control * Interface for threat management * Mobile * User experience * Content and access management * Threat management for infrastructure * Botnet, DDoS, Malware etc. * Enterprise * Managed security services (Threat management) * Data center (legacy/public-cloud) use-cases * Managed security services * GiLAN firewall * Threat management for infrastructure 2. Enterprise use-cases * Branch & Campus * Threat management policies * Data center (legacy/private-cloud/public-cloud) use-cases * Threat management for infrastructure * Regulatory and compliance policies * Access policies * Application, Users, Data access management * Htybrid-cloud access management * Application policies * East-to-west policies I can write a small paragraph for all these use-cases if we want to go deeper for the draft. Thanks & Regards, Rakesh
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
