I think that this draft has good, promising work in it. However, I do not think that it is ready, at this moment in time, for WG adoption. Here are some specific points focused on just the Abstract that I think the authors should work on to improve this draft:
DRAFT: This document provides a framework ... <jcs> I am missing how this framework relates to the framework draft; this needs to be covered. </jcs> DRAFT: ...and information model for the definition of northbound interfaces for a security controller. <jcs> I could not find an information model in this draft. While I don't expect a detailed model at this stage, I don't even see proposed classes or the beginning of a class hierarchy. </jcs> DRAFT The interfaces are based on user-intent instead of vendor-specific or device-centric approaches... <jcs> There are too many subjects that are attempted to be covered! User-intent is a subject by itself - a big one. There isn't even a definition in I2NSF of this term, let alone in the industry . I would strongly recommend that this be moved into a separate draft. </jcs> DRAFT The document identifies the common interfaces needed to enforce the user-intent based policies onto network security functions (NSFs) irrespective of how those functions are realized. <jcs> How can you define a set of interfaces when there is no definition of user-intent based policies? I'm not even sure what a "user-intent based policy is", </jcs> best regards, John On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > This email serves as a call for WG adoption of > draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req > as a WG document. The call for adoption will run for 2 weeks ending Oct 5, > 2016. > > The requirement document is one of the key deliverables specified by the > I2NSF charter. > > > > Please note that this is a call for adoption, and not a last call for > content of the document. Adopting a WG document simply means that the WG > will focus its efforts on that particular draft going forward, and use that > document for resolving open issues and documenting the WG’s decisions. > > > > Please indicate whether you support adoption for not, and if not why. > Issues you have with the current document itself can also be raised, but > they should be raised in the context of what should be changed in the > document going forward, rather than a pre-condition for adoption. > > > > Finally, now is also a good time to poll for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, in line with the IPR disclosure obligations for WG > participants (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you > are listed as a document author please respond to this email (to the > chairs) whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumar-i2nsf-client- > facing-interface-req-00.txt > > > > > > Authors: there are some editorial changes needed to comply with the I2NSF > terminologies that the WG has agreed, in particular: > > - Abstract: needs to change the starting sentence to “This > document provides a framework and requirement ….” > > - Change all reference of “North Bound Interface” to > “Client/consumer facing interface”. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Linda & Adrian > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
