John, Thanks for your clear explanation. We authors will reflect your comments in our revision.
Best Regards, Paul On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:22 AM, John Strassner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:08 PM >> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] what does the term "Policy Domain" commonly refer >> to? (was RE: WG Adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr >> aft-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 <[email protected]> >> 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:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:47 PM >> *To:* Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facin >> g-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 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The authors of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facin >> g-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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> regards, >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I2nsf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> regards, >> >> John >> > > > > -- > regards, > John > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
