Hi Rakesh, After I discuss with my coauthors which draft is fitting well with our draft, I will let you know.
Thanks for your kind suggestion. Best Regards, Paul On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Rakesh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > Based on suggestion from Diego to see if we could merge > draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01 with > draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01. > > Our draft deals with interfaces client would use to interact with the > security controller/management system. We are discussing only the client > interfaces and not the client structure itself. > > > > We should have a discussion to see what can be merged. I look forward to > working with you. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Rakesh > > *From: *I2nsf <[email protected]> on behalf of "Mr. Jaehoon Paul > Jeong" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 10:43 PM > *To: *"Diego R. Lopez" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Prof. Hyoungshick Kim" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <skku_secu-brain_all@ > googlegroups.com>, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [I2nsf] questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security- > management-architecture-01 > > > > Hi Diego, > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > Our draft can be aligned with draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01 > in that > > ours deals with the interface between I2NSF Client and Security Controller. > > However, draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01 does not > clarify the structure of > > I2NSF Client in a detailed level, but our draft proposes such a detailed > structure for I2NSF Client. > > > > In addition, our draft considers the policy update in I2NSF through the > report from an NSF > > for a security attack (e.g., DDoS attack) or an event (e.g., the detection > of a new malware) > > toward I2NSF Client. This updated policy is disseminated to the whole > I2NSF systems > > for spontaneous reaction to the new security attack or event. > > > > Like this, our draft is closely related to the the I2NSF framework. > > Let us prepare for the text for the I2NSF framework draft, and then discuss > > whether our text can fit the I2NSF framework. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Diego R. Lopez < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > While I find agreeable that your draft could be merged with another one > (or other ones) in order to consolidate the documents to be produced by > I2NSF, I am not 100% sure it should be the framework draft. Looking at the > proposals you make in your draft I see it more aligned with what the drafts > dealing with the client-facing interface are considering than with the > general framework. In particular, draft-kumar-i2nsf- > client-facing-interface-req-01 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req/> > has > a section(3.3) that discusses management deployment models, and I am under > the impression this architecture you propose could be seen as a refinement > of those models. > > > > Be goode, > > > > On 21 Oct 2016, at 02:54 , Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Linda, > > Are you agreeing at merging our draft (draft-kim-i2nsf-security- > management-architecture-02) > > into draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-03? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Linda, > > As a coauthor of this draft, I will answer your questions inline below. > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hyoungshick, et al, > > > > How would you position your > draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01 > with regard to the I2NSF framework draft? I find there are a lot of > duplicated content to the I2nsf framework draft. > > > > [Paul] We would like to merge our draft into the i2nsf framework draft > > because our draft has one depth more detailed architecture. > > This detailed architecture will be helpful to implement the i2nsf > framework. > > > > > > There are some differences, such as the following: Are you trying to > define how “security policy” is structured? > > > > <image002.png> > > > > [Paul] Our architecture allows an NSF to update a low-level policy and > apply it to the related high-level policy > > via the control path of Security Controller and Policy Collector (renamed > Event Collector in version 02) in Figure 1 > > of our version 02: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-security- > management-architecture-02 > > > > For example, if an NSF of firewall detects a new DoS-attack host, it > reports the updated blacklist having > > the IP address of such a host to Application Logic in I2NSF Client via > Security Controller and Event Collector. > > Application Logic asks Policy Updater to disseminate the updated > blacklist to the security controllers > > under the administration of the same I2NSF Client. > > > > Will the “High Level security management” eventually lead to Client Facing > Policy data models? > > > > [Paul] Yes, as explained above, the High-level security management leads > to update and handle Client facing policy > > data models. > > > > Do you plan to define interfaces between all those components depicted in > Figure 1? The interfaces between some of those components are not really > in the I2NSF WG current charter, such as “Security Policy Manager” <-> “NSF > Capability Manager”, or the interface between “Application Logic” <-> > “Policy Updater”. > > > > [Paul] Yes, we have a plan to define such interfaces. > > > > > > Are those components in your current implementation? Is it like an > “example of one implementation”? > > > > [Paul] Though those components are not fully implemented yet in our > implementation, my team at SKKU > > will make implement those components in a later version. > > > > Thanks for your clarification questions. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > > > > > Thanks, Linda > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > > > > > -- > > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > > > > > > -- > > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [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] > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ---------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -- > > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
