John and Adrian: I'd like to comment on your recommendations. I agree that the gap analysis should just be input to other documents. The gap analysis served its purpose by pointing us to work that needed to be done. I'll be glad to keep it up to date.
I agree with publication for (use cases: draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases), Terminology (draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework), framework (draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework), protocol extensions (client-facing), examination of existing secure communication mechanisms (draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00). I think we probably should publish the information model and the data. Why? I think information models are useful when you are creating new functionality. In many of the NETMOD models that are only yang models, the models are recasting old netmod work. information model. One heads up to the chairs, the IESG has determined that the I2RS work on the protocol strawman will be broken into pieces and given to the NETCONF and NETMOD working group. Based on that input, I will be uploading 3 drafts (Netconf changes for I2RS, RESTCONF changes for I2RS, and Yang model changes for I2RS requirements) that cover the additional technology for I2RS ephemeral state. In case you did not know, the pub/sub and notification drafts have already been submitted to NETCONF. However, there is one piece that is not being covered - the communication with the I2RS/I2NSF agent during DoS attacks. The I2RS, I2NSF, and DOTS work shares the need to get a "help me" message out/in to the nodes during these time periods. Would it be possible to schedule an interim in December or January to discuss this topic? Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Strassner Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 1:35 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' Subject: Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF? I agree with your recommendations. Regards, John -----Original Message----- From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[email protected]> Subject: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF? Hi, We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our work as RFCs or not. The milestone reads: > WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs > (use cases, > framework, information model, and examination of existing secure > communication > mechanisms) We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree - otherwise, this is the email of record documenting our plan. use cases draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases Pursue publication framework draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework Pursue publication information model Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish. Pending adoption and more work. gap analysis for protocols draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis Do not publish Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive requirements for protocol extensions Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 Pursue publication examination of existing secure communication mechanisms Aim to add this to draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 Pursue publication terminology draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology Pursue publication Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
