Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread Susan Hares 
John: 

 

I will be glad to do the terminology as well.  I look forward to your slides.  

 

Sue 

 

From: John Strassner [mailto:straz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 6:26 PM
To: Susan Hares; John Strassner
Cc: Linda Dunbar; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Sue, could you do the terminology as well? It is short, I'll even do slides for 
you - I can't go due to a family health problem.

 

thanks,

John

 

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Susan Hares  wrote:

Linda: 

 

May I tentatively get a time slot for the Problem statement and use case?   5 
minutes or less would be fine.  

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:33 AM
To: 'i2nsf@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has been 
revised. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/ 

 

If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need to 
make a correction, please let the chairs know.

 

Thanks,

 

Linda & Adrian

 


___
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

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread John Strassner 
Sue, could you do the terminology as well? It is short, I'll even do slides
for you - I can't go due to a family health problem.

thanks,
John

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Susan Hares  wrote:

> Linda:
>
>
>
> May I tentatively get a time slot for the Problem statement and use case?
>   5 minutes or less would be fine.
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:33 AM
> *To:* 'i2nsf@ietf.org'
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised
>
>
>
> Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has
> been revised.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/
>
>
>
> If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need
> to make a correction, please let the chairs know.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Linda & Adrian
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread Susan Hares 
Linda: 

 

I simply have to include the changes suggested on the list.  I will post an
copy of the draft on a private server later today, and then a fresh copy on
11/13/2016.  

 

Sue 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:52 AM
To: Susan Hares; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Sue, 

 

Sure. 

 

Are there any gating issues for moving it to WGLC? 

 

Linda

 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com] 
Sent: 2016年11月3日 10:47
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Linda: 

 

May I tentatively get a time slot for the Problem statement and use case?
5 minutes or less would be fine.  

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:33 AM
To: 'i2nsf@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has been
revised. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/ 

 

If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need to
make a correction, please let the chairs know.

 

Thanks,

 

Linda & Adrian

 

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread Linda Dunbar 
Sue,

Sure.

Are there any gating issues for moving it to WGLC?

Linda

From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com]
Sent: 2016年11月3日 10:47
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

Linda:

May I tentatively get a time slot for the Problem statement and use case?   5 
minutes or less would be fine.

Sue Hares


From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:33 AM
To: 'i2nsf@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has been 
revised.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/

If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need to 
make a correction, please let the chairs know.

Thanks,

Linda & Adrian

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread Susan Hares 
Linda: 

 

May I tentatively get a time slot for the Problem statement and use case?
5 minutes or less would be fine.  

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:33 AM
To: 'i2nsf@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

 

Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has been
revised. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/ 

 

If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need to
make a correction, please let the chairs know.

 

Thanks,

 

Linda & Adrian

 

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-97 I2NSF agenda revised

2016-11-03 Thread Linda Dunbar 
Thanks to people pointing out some missing items. The I2NSF agenda has been 
revised.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda/i2nsf/

If you requested agenda time and don't see yourself there, or if you need to 
make a correction, please let the chairs know.

Thanks,

Linda & Adrian

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

2016-11-03 Thread Rakesh Kumar 
Hi,

It looks good but I hope, we would publish the information model as well, it is 
the basis for development as different vendors/supplier may build differently 
capable systems. Here is a quote from RFC3444 (section 3.0).

“An important characteristic of IMs is that they can (and generally
   should) specify relationships between objects.  Organizations may use
   the contents of an IM to delimit the functionality that can be
   included in a DM.”
 
I am curious, whether other IETF WGs such as I2RS are publishing information 
model.

Regards, 
Rakesh

On 11/2/16, 11:42 AM, "I2nsf on behalf of Adrian Farrel" 
 wrote:

Hi,

We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our 
work as
RFCs or not. The milestone reads:

> WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs (use
cases,
> framework, information model, and examination of existing secure 
communication
> mechanisms) 

We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following
position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree - 
otherwise,
this is the email of record documenting our plan.

use cases
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases
Pursue publication

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

information model
Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish.
Pending adoption and more work.

gap analysis for protocols
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
Do not publish
Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive

requirements for protocol extensions
Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 
Pursue publication

examination of existing secure communication mechanisms
Aim to add this to  draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 
Pursue publication

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf


___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

2016-11-03 Thread Diego R. Lopez 
Hi,

I support the proposal.

We will need to have a similar decision about the attestation draft, though I 
think we the WG can wait till we the authors provide the next version and make 
a concrete recommendation to be discussed…

Be goode,

On 2 Nov 2016, at 19:42 , Adrian Farrel 
> wrote:

Hi,

We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our work as
RFCs or not. The milestone reads:

WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs (use
cases,
framework, information model, and examination of existing secure communication
mechanisms)

We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following
position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree - otherwise,
this is the email of record documenting our plan.

use cases
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases
Pursue publication

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

information model
Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish.
Pending adoption and more work.

gap analysis for protocols
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
Do not publish
Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive

requirements for protocol extensions
Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
Pursue publication

examination of existing secure communication mechanisms
Aim to add this to  draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
Pursue publication

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel:+34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
--

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-02.txt

2016-11-03 Thread Daniel Migault 
Hi,

Thanks for the feed backs. Please see my response inline too.

BR,
Daniel



On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:34 AM, John Strassner  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments, please see inline.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
> Migault
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2016 3:20 AM
> *To:* i2nsf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-02.txt
>
>
>
> Please consider responding to this email rather than the previous one. --
> Too many CCs.
>
> Yours,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Daniel Migault <
> daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I reviewed the document. Please find my comments below.
>
> Yours,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>Metadata:  Data that provides information about other data.
>
> MGLT: This is actually how metadata is defined. However, it might be
> usefull to provide an example, or conplete the definition.
>
> 
> How about if we add an example? As you say, this is a complete and concise
> definition of metadata; I would prefer if the definitions are kept concise,
> and are augmented with examples.
> 
>
> MGLT: I agree. Illustrations are great and usually more clarifying than
complex definitions.

> I an also wondering if I2NSF only defines metadata associated to YANG
> models. If so woudl it be relevant to mention RFC7952 ?
>
> 
> This is a good point.
> 
>
> The examples do not seem to ilustrate what metadata is, instead they
> mention protocols that use YANG for which metadta is defined.
>
>   Examples include IETF network management protocols (e.g.  NETCONF,
>   RESTCONF, IPFIX) or IETF routing interfaces (I2RS).  The I2NSF
>   security interface may utilize Metadata to describe and/or
>   prescribe characteristics and behavior of the YANG data models.
>
> 
> You are correct. I propose replacing the existing example with the
> following:
>
> Metadata may be used to describe and/or prescribe the characteristics
> and behavior of the data that the metadata applies to. Metadata is NOT
> limited to metadata as defined in YANG models [RFC7952]; rather,
> metadata ca be used to augment the modeling of any I2NSF model
> element. Examples include:
>
>   - version information of an I2NSF Capability, I2NSF Component,
>  I2NSF Policy, or other function or object of an I2NSF system
>- descriptive information, such as best current practices or other
>  usage information, that describe the use or operation of an
>  I2NSF Component
>- prescriptive information, such as algorithms or commands, that
>  define how an I2NSF Component should be used
> 
>
>
MGLT: This is good to me. I personnaly see metadata as defined in NSH, that
is used on a per packet basis in which case "description/prescriptive"
information woudl be hardly used. This is good you provide the example of
the "model" and makes the text very clear at least to me. Thank you.

>Network Security Function (NSF):  Software that provides a set of
>   security-related services.  Examples include detecting unwanted
>   activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such unwanted
>   activity in order to fulfil service requirements.  The NSF can
>   also help in supporting communication stream integrity and
>   confidentiality.
>
> MGLT: It is not clear to me the relation between function and service. My
> understanding is that service may involve multiple functions. But I believe
> it would be helpful to position these two concepts - at least in this
> definition.
>
> 
> Good point. How about:
>
>Network Security Function (NSF):  Software that provides a set of
>   security-related services. An NSF represents the software as a
>   functional block. An NSF functional block may contain one or
>   more security-related services. Examples include detecting unwanted
>   activity and blocking or mitigating the effect of such unwanted
>   activity in order to fulfil service requirements.  The NSF can
>   also help in supporting communication stream integrity and
>   confidentiality.
>
> 
>
> MGLT: Basically NSF is composed of services I think we shoudl carefully
this is used this way in other drafts. Just to make it clear if we consider
DOTS/ACME... as services the NSF will be composed of these services.


>Producer:  A Producer is a Role that is assigned to an I2NSF
>   Component that can send information and/or commands to another
>   I2NSF Component.  See also: Consumer, Role.
>
> MGLT: Is Producer equivalent to provider ? If so maybe that would hepl to
> use a single designation.
>
> 
> I assume you mean I2NSF Provider Interface? Or are you worried that people
> will equate Provider to Producer?
>
> MGLT: the second alternative.

> Generically, Providers supply services, but are NOT a functional block in
> an I2NSF system. Rather, they are actors that use an I2NSF system. In
>