I also prefer that we have two separate publications based on RFC3444 guidelines.
1. Information model --> plain text is enough to describe managed objects and their relationship 2. Data model --> YANG or some other representation Thanks & Regards, Rakesh From: I2nsf <[email protected]> on behalf of John Strassner <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:40 AM To: "Diego R. Lopez" <[email protected]>, John Strassner <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Info models and draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring Hi all, The main reason for publishing an information model is to support multiple data models that are derived from it. I realize that the IETF is worried mainly about YANG data models. That is perfectly well and good. However, security controllers will need to interface with compute, storage, and other systems that have poor (if any) YANG coverage. As soon as I go into a data center or a cloud, YANG is simply not used for compute and storage solutions. This means that we can either ignore that, and build a silo, or take it into account, or not. If we choose to ignore, there is no reason to publish the info model. If we choose not to ignore, and want to support other data models, then we SHOULD publish the info model as well. Even if we only have 1 data model now. Hence, I personally would prefer two publications - one for the info model, and one for the YANG data model. best, John On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Diego R. Lopez <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Adrian, Agree: it is a useful tool but should not be a separate publication. The only reason for publishing the information model could be to do so in the same document as the data model, as rationale supporting it, and even giving the opportunity for alternate data models using other data representations (TOSCA, for example, very much in fashion in cloudspace). Be goode, On 14 Oct 2016, at 11:54 , Adrian Farrel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks, all, for the useful comments about this document. It seems clear that there is support for developing this work and producing a data model for monitoring. Two points: 1. As noted by Sue, there is a BoF/WG planned for IETF-98 on "Security Events". I suggest you go to that. I will also make sure the AD is aware of the potential overlap/interaction. 2. It seems reasonable to me that producing an information model (such as in draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring) is a useful step toward producing a data model. I have no objection to using a structured approach. However, my question about "publication" could be phrased as follows: - Suppose we decide we want a data model for monitoring - Suppose we use draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring to guide our work on that data model - Suppose that we push ahead with the data model quite soon so that it starts to catch up with the info model If all of those things apply, why would we need to publish an RFC that captures the information model given that we will be publishing a data model shortly afterwards? Presumably, once the data model is published, no one will ever read the information model. So the information model would be a valuable document working document in which the WG would capture its thoughts and consensus, but would be discarded once the work to make the data model was complete. Or am I wrong? Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 October 2016 14:49 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Thoughts on draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring Adrian: Why: Monitoring is a key component to I2NSF for monitoring NSF devices. Monitoring is not the same as NSF devices sending notifications - which is a push from the NSF devices. Monitoring may encompasses specific requests to the device. Monitoring is different than the DOTS - "help me" cry from a device under attack. While I see the security ADs are proposing Security event, it is important that the I2NSF create monitoring concepts that work with all of the functions (e.g. querying capabilities, sending/receiving notification, and events). Data model versus Information model: Since we do not seem to have a clear idea of what the data model should be, it is important to create the informational models. The content of the draft is a good first step. Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:22 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [I2nsf] Thoughts on draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring Working Group, Linda and I would like to hear some more from you about draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring. Is it something you think we should be working on? Should we have a separate YANG module for it or fold it into other modules? If we produce a YANG module, do we still need to publish the information model? And, most important, what do you think of the content of the draft? Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Tel: +34 913 129 041<tel:%2B34%20913%20129%20041> Mobile: +34 682 051 091<tel:%2B34%20682%20051%20091> ---------------------------------- _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
