Hi*, My answer to Adrian's question is #3:
* I would quote RFC 3444 in the definition of the Data Model. * Not sure I see the need to keep IDS and IPS in the list, since their "definition" only points to the expanded acronyms. * I find the definition of the Management somewhat contradictory with the definition of the Control Plane, as far as the decision-making process is concerned. I would suggest something like: "In the context of I2NSF, the Management Plane is an architectural Component that provides common functions to define the behavior of I2NSF Components. The Management Plane can be used to formulate behavioral requirements or instructions and forward them to the I2NSF Control Plane which will in turn derive these requirements or instructions into I2NSF component resource allocation and configuration tasks, as well as the instantiation of (user-specific) security policies. The I2NSF Management Plane is also responsible for handling OAM data, which may influence the decision-making process of the I2NSF Control Plane so that I2NSF Component configurations can be modified accordingly, for example. * The notion of I2NSF administrative domain is introduced in the definition of the NSF-Facing I/F. I think this encourages the additional definition of what an I2NSF administrative domain is. Maybe something like: "An I2NSF administrative domain is the set of I2NSF components that are managed by a single administrative entity, such as a Security Service Provider." Cheers, Christian. -----Original Message----- From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [I2nsf] Stability call for draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-03 Hi WG, The framework document got updated to match the terminology document which was a good first test. Now we would like to make sure that the terminology as currently documented is something we can all work with. Hence this call for review and opinion. Please respond to the question "Is the terminology draft stable?" 1. No. Major changes are needed. If you do this you are duty bound to point out the problems, and you are expected to help solve them. 2. Yes, but I haven't really read it. If you do this we will chuckle and probably make you stand up at the next WG meeting. 3. Yes, but I have some minor concerns. You'll need to point them out and help fix them, but we will still be able to consider the document as a good basis for future work. 4. Yes, I think this is something we can use as our foundation. Note that Linda and I don't intend last-calling this document for a bit as we suspect new terms will show up as other work progresses. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
