It is hard to tell due to lack of specificity, but likely it is NOT a correct use of the term. The relationship is backwards - a tenant does NOT control policies. Rather, an admin domain (i.e., a policy domain) control policies, and tenants exist in an admin domain.
This is what I meant in my brief comment. regards, John On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote: > John, > > > > Thank you very much for the interpretation of “Policy Domain”. > > > > Based on the reply from Paul, the term “Policy Domain” in their draft is > about a “Family (or a group) of Tenants”. > > Is it a proper to use “Policy domain” as a term referring to the domain > applying to a family or a group of tenants? Say a group of Departments > (tenants) belonging under one organization? > > > > If not, can you suggest a better term? > > > > Thank you. > > > > Linda > > > > *From:* John Strassner [mailto:straz...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:08 PM > *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* i2nsf@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] what does the term "Policy Domain" commonly refer > to? (was RE: WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/ > draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04 > > > > A "Policy Domain" is an administrative domain in which a set of Policies > are used to ensure that managed entities in that domain behave in a desired > manner. Policies can be used for configuration, monitoring, access control, > and other behavior. > > > > Note that this is a standard term in the academic literature. > > > > > > regards, > > John > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> > wrote: > > John, > > > > Since you are the policy expert, what does “Policy Domain” commonly refer > to? > > Can “Policy domain” be one policy applying to a set of tenants? Or one > policy applying to a set of geographic regions? Or Policy domain being a > set of policies? > > > > Thank you. > > Linda > > > > *From:* John Strassner [mailto:straz...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:47 PM > *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* i2nsf@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/ > draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-04 > > > > IMHO, the purpose of a WG adopting a draft is to acknowledge that the > draft is a good starting point for the work that WG wants to accomplish. To > be perfectly clear, I am NOT objecting on the completeness of the document. > Rather, I am objecting on the technical correctness of the starting point. > > > I do NOT feel that the proposed documents represent a good starting point. > Ignoring things that can be easily fixed (e.g., grammar), there are a host > of problems, such as: > > - what, exactly, is this draft trying to do? I thought I would see YANG > for policy rules sent over the Consumer-Facing Interface. > Instead, I see the name of the interface, whose first element is > multi-tenancy, that also contains policies? Policies do not care > about multi-tenancy. They do care about domains. The organization of > the YANG is incorrect. > > - sec 4: in the ieft-i2nsf-cf-interface module > > - why is multi-tenancy at the top of the tree? Shouldn't a DOMAIN > be able to have multiple tenants? > > - why does a domain have an authentication-method? First, multiple > such methods should be able to be used. Second, how would a domain know > what an authentication method even is? > > - why is tenant a sibling of domain, and not a child? > > - why is domain a leaf within policy-tenant? This should be a > reference, and why doesn't domain have a reference to policy-tenant? > > - policy roles have nothing to do with multi-tenancy - why are they > here? > > > > I could go on, but even the above means that the rest of the YANG will be > wrong. > > > > Therefore, the document is NOT a good starting point, and will NOT > accelerate the path to getting a good RFC. > > > > regards, > > John > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> > wrote: > > > > > > The authors of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer- > facing-interface-dm-04 > > > > Have requested working group adoption of this draft. > > > > Please bear in mind that WG Adoption doesn’t mean that the draft current > content is ready, WG Adoption only means that it is a good basis for a > working group to work on. > > > > While all feedback is helpful, comments pro or con with explanations are > much more helpful than just "yes please" or "no thank you". > > > > Thank you. > > > > Linda & Yoav > > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > > > > -- > > regards, > > John > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > > > > -- > > regards, > > John > -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
