Dear Linda:

Please see my comments inline.

> El 11 oct 2016, a las 0:13, Linda Dunbar <> escribió:
> Sowmini, 
> Here are the answers to your questions are inserted below: 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sowmini Varadhan [] 
> Hi Linda,
> Was the webex session recorded? If yes, could you please share a pointer?
> [Linda] I am afraid that the session wasn't recorded properly. 
> I dont see my comments about slide 5 in the etherpad so I want to reiterate 
> on the list: I am working with Rafa and Gabi, and they were unable to attend 
> the interim meeting, though I managed to do so. The answer to the question on 
> slide 5 about *ipsec-flow-protection,, which will focus on IPsec management
> [Linda] Your draft "draft-xx-ipsec-flow-protection" needs more discussion to 
> figure out if it belongs to Client facing interface related drafts or NSF 
> facing related drafts. 

[Rafa] In my opinion, NSF facing related drafts. In fact, 
draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection focuses on the interaction between 
the security controller and the NSF.
> However, we are looking for your response to the question that was sent to 
> you offline. I am including that question here, in case it slipped through 
> the cracks due to its absence on the list.
> [Linda] My answers are inserted below:

[Rafa] Mine, as well. Please see inline.

> Please provide the clarification requested below.
>> Subject: Re: Next steps about SDN and IPSec
>> From: Rafa Marin Lopez <>
>> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 23:59:14 +0200
>> Cc: Rafa Marin Lopez <>, Gabriel Lopez <>,
>>        Sowmini Varadhan <>,
>>        David Carrel <>
>> Hi Linda:
>>> El 30 sept 2016, a las 22:20, Linda Dunbar <> 
>>> escribi
>>> Rafa,
>>> Is your draft to address the 3.1.10 of the I2NSF problem statement =
>>> (
>>> ases/)
>> [Rafa] As you well know our I-D is focused on IPsec management.
>> Nevertheless, we feel that i2nsf scope in key distribution is broader 
>> (though the current text in section 3.1.10 is perhaps focused on 
>> routing In this sense, our I-D is focused in the details of IPsec SAs, 
>> which is just one example of the  need of key distribution based on SDNs.
>> Therefore, regarding your question, are you looking for a more general 
>> I-D to cover 3.1.10? Or would you expect several I-Ds covering 
>> different aspects of key distribution?
> [Linda]  Section 3.1.10 should be broader than your draft. As long as your 
> draft fits in the description, it would be helpful if you can move your draft 
> further with data model or (at least the information model). 

[Rafa] It definitely fits in the description. Therefore, following your advice 
we should work with data model and/or information model.
>>> Please provide comment to the draft if the description is not quite 
>>> right. We are about to call WGLC for the revised version.
>> [Rafa] Generally speaking, I think the text seems focused in routing. 
>> In any case, we can provide more detailed comments about this section 
>> in the mailing list.
> [Linda] can you provide the suggested text for the section? That would be 
> very helpful. 

[Rafa] I already provided those suggestions, but we haven’t received any 
comments yet. Please see:

Gabi also provided his comments in:

Another suggestion is that, perhaps, this IPsec use case could be included 
somehow in section 4 as an example to cover "section 3.1.9 Lack of Mechanism 
for Dynamic Key Distribution to NSFs”.

What do you think?.

Best Regards.

>> Best Regards.
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list

Rafael Marin Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail:

I2nsf mailing list

Reply via email to