[I2nsf] Should the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-01 be characterized as "Information model"? or something else?
John, Frank, Diego and Aldo, It seems to me that the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-01 covers the I2NSF rule structure. In your view, should the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability be characterized as the information model? If it is characterized as the information model, are they exchanged over the NSF facing interface? Or over the registration interface (identified in the Framework draft)? Thanks, Linda ___ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
[I2nsf] Progress with draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-05
Hi WG, I am about to do a document shepherd review prior to starting a WG last call. In conversation with Linda just now I think I spotted a few areas where I am going to make chunky suggestions for additional text, but overall the document looks sound. If you care deeply about this work and haven't looked at the framework for a while, now would be a good time. Don't wait for WG last call. Thanks, Adrian ___ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
[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 I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
Re: [I2nsf] Will definitions related to "Attestation" to be added to I2NSF terminology draft? and the survey msg?
Hi Linda, I will start on these in the middle of next week. I am happy to coordinate the editing as usual; however, attestation will need input from Henk and Diego. regards, John On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > John, Sue, Diego, Frank, and Henk, > > > > During the I2NSF terminology discussion at I2NSF WG session in IETF98, > there were some discussions on if terminologies related to Attestation need > to be added to the terminology draft. Want to ask if there is any plan to > add them. > > The IETF 98 meeting notes also have the following: > > > > - Need to explore metadata more (its use in netmod is not aligned with > that of other SDOs) > > - Need to explore Events > > - should we differentiate between event types (e.g., alarms vs. > threshold crossings) or assume that all are equal? > > - how robust a definition is needed? > > - Would like to see if terminology can help mismatch between info and data > models > > > > AI: start list email threads on the list of issues presented > > > > Just checking if those issues will be addressed. > > > > Thanks, Linda > > > -- regards, John ___ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
[I2nsf] Will definitions related to "Attestation" to be added to I2NSF terminology draft? and the survey msg?
John, Sue, Diego, Frank, and Henk, During the I2NSF terminology discussion at I2NSF WG session in IETF98, there were some discussions on if terminologies related to Attestation need to be added to the terminology draft. Want to ask if there is any plan to add them. The IETF 98 meeting notes also have the following: - Need to explore metadata more (its use in netmod is not aligned with that of other SDOs) - Need to explore Events - should we differentiate between event types (e.g., alarms vs. threshold crossings) or assume that all are equal? - how robust a definition is needed? - Would like to see if terminology can help mismatch between info and data models AI: start list email threads on the list of issues presented Just checking if those issues will be addressed. Thanks, Linda ___ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
