Re: [I2nsf] questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01

Hi Paul, While I find agreeable that your draft could be merged with another one (or other ones) in order to consolidate the documents to be produced by I2NSF, I am not 100% sure it should be the framework draft. Looking at the proposals you make in your draft I see it more aligned with what

Re: [I2nsf] Info models and draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring

Hi Adrian, Agree: it is a useful tool but should not be a separate publication. The only reason for publishing the information model could be to do so in the same document as the data model, as rationale supporting it, and even giving the opportunity for alternate data models using other data

Re: [I2nsf] [Id-event] An I-D just for your information

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hunt-idevent-token-06 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hunt-idevent-distribution-01 Phil > On Oct 22, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Diego R. Lopez > wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > Can you provide a link for the SET profiles? Just looking for

Re: [I2nsf] [Id-event] An I-D just for your information

Hi Phil, Can you provide a link for the SET profiles? Just looking for “set” gives a horribly unmanageable list of references… Thanks, On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:24 , Phil Hunt > wrote: Adrian, So where this might fit together is that SET simply

Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

Hi Adrian, I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material of the gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the documents that reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. I’d like the authors of those documents consider the possibility if we finally

Re: [I2nsf] with regarding to WG adoption for the revised draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01.txt

Hi, When going through the document I found that most of my original comments were addressed and therefore I was not going to object adoption, taking into account the urgency that many in the WG see for this adoption, but after reading John’s comments I think there are a couple of issues that

Re: [I2nsf] Comments/questions about draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-03.txt

Hi Gabi, With the due apologies for the delay in replying (due to a period dedicated to project calls, you know how it is…) let me try to address your comments inline below. On 6 Oct 2016, at 12:52 , Gabriel Lopez > wrote: - “This draft proposes that a

Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

I think we should keep the gap analysis current with what ever gaps still are present. Maybe move addressed gaps to a 'handled' section of the draft. This way we have a history of what the gap analysis drove to completion. Once all gaps are handled THEN we let it expire. Bob On