[I2nsf] Starting to think about an agenda for I2NSF in Berlin

Hi working group, Linda and I have been thinking about the agenda for Berlin. We think that we should continue to focus on our charter and deliverables doing what is necessary to advance our milestones. Broadly we could split our 2 hours as: 30 minutes status of WG and progress of WG documents

Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-07.txt

Thanks for the work, Sue. I'll take a look as time allows, but you're usually pretty reasonable so I doubt there will be any issues. Will also respond to your specific questions. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com] > Sent: 29 January 2017 00:40 >

[I2nsf] I2NSF provisional schedule or Chicago

Hi, I2NSF has been *provisionally* scheduled for 13.00-15.00 on Monday March 27, 2017. The clashes with other WGs visible at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/agenda.html don't look harmful. Linda and I will start work on an agenda shortly. Adrian

Re: [I2nsf] Sketch minutes from today's virtual interim

> Just want to reiterate the rough consensus of some controversial terminologies: >  > Two interfaces > - Consumer/Client Facing Interface > - NSF Facing Interface >   > Within these we have "sets of operations" > One of these sets is the "Capabilities set of operations"   And, for the avoidance

[I2nsf] Straw man text for proposed charter for new working group: Security Event

Hi, The ADs forwarded this to us for your information. *Please* direct your general discussions to the id-ev...@ietf.org and only bring conversations of overlap with I2NSF to this list. Cheers, Adrian > Forwarded Message > Subject: [dispatch] Straw man text for proposed

Re: [I2nsf] Process discussion on draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00

, but I would like to see a more detailed discussion of some specific aspects of the draft (among them, its contents) before considering it ready for adoption. And I cannot see why we have such an urgent need for adoption either. Be goode, On 30 Sep 2016, at 14:14 , Adrian Farrel <

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

documents consider the possibility if we finally agree to go as you suggest. Be goode, On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: Hi I2NSF, Our charter says... The I2NSF working group's deliverables include: o A single document covering use cases, p

[I2nsf] Security for security :-)

s. Thanks! Adrian -- Support an author and your imagination. Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales. More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales. https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from

[I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

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)

[I2nsf] Thoughts on draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring

Working Group, Linda and I would like to hear some more from you about draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring. Is it something you think we should be working on? Should we have a separate YANG module for it or fold it into other modules? If we produce a YANG module, do we still need to publish

[I2nsf] Closed WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-06

Hi all, Thanks for the reviews that you sent in. I think we have support (albeit a little thin) for this document to move forward. Authors, could you please address the comments that were posted (probably with a new revision), and then I will do the shepherd write-up. If anyone else wants to

[I2nsf] IPR and draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases

Authors and Contributors, This email is to remind you that by being listed as an author or as a contributor on this draft you have *personally* committed to abide by the IPR rules set out in BCP 78 and BCP 79. That means that if you are aware of IPR that applies to this document you must ensure

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-06

Hi, This review should count as WG chair review and also getting ahead on the document shepherd review. All of my comments are pretty minor. Thanks for the work, Adrian --- idnits shows up some issues with references. At first glance, these all seem to be real problems. Note that the

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

FWIW, some context. As we started to advance a number of I2NSF document we ran into a few problems: - Different documents used different terms for similar or identical concepts - Different documents used the same terms to mean different things - Different documents attempted to define the same

[I2nsf] On Information Models [Was: need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?]

Taking John's three points separately (and in reverse order) 3) Yes, traceability back from DM to IM is very valuable and is a strong should for the WG because the WG has decided that IMs are a deliverable. 2) I think we should lean very heavily on RFC3444 for our definition of IM and DM.

Re: [I2nsf] On Information Models [Was: need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?]

od. So we can continue with separate I-Ds (separate modules), but we need to get them to be consistent where the pieces of the models impact on each other. I see there is debate on this topic on the list. Good. Thanks, Adrian === On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Adrian Farrel <

[I2nsf] ATTENTION REMOTE PRESENTERS

Sorry for shouting on the list. The Meetecho team is *desperate* to contact Anil and Dave as remote presenters in today's meeting. Thanks, Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Lorenzo Miniero [mailto:lore...@meetecho.com] > Sent: 18 July 2017 12:25 > To: aloh...@juniper.net;

Re: [I2nsf] Chair

So my word of thanks to the WG for constructive work. Some fiery exchanges on the list, some heated side meetings, and some surprisingly constructive and positive WG meetings. We complete this week with our first RFC published. I will do a hand-over to Yoav at the end of the week and plan to

[I2nsf] Well done: RFC 8192 on Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF): Problem Statement and Use Cases

Was hoping this would be out while we were in Prague, so we could celebrate. But well done anyway. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of rfc-editor@rfc- > editor.org > Sent: 26 July 2017 03:20 > To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org;

[I2nsf] Someone please say something! [Was: Working group last call on draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework]

I know a few of you commented before the start of this last call, but reviews from the rest would be really welcome. Thanks, Adrian > -Original Message- > From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 16 June 2017 01:23 > To: i2nsf@ietf.o

[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

[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

[I2nsf] Next steps with Terminology draft

Hi authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology, I think we got some useful reviews of this work over the last month. The feedback was generally very positive, and it is good to know that we have convergence on our terminology. That has given me the courage to last call the Framework. It would be

Re: [I2nsf] draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework

ecture. There has also been experimentation at IETF hackathons that is consistent with this framework. > Personnel: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> is the Document Shepherd. Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> is the Responsible AD. > (3) Briefly describe t

Re: [I2nsf] I2NSF Drafts for Independent Submission Stream

ome explanation of whether it is specific to known implementations or more generally applicable. Cheers, Adrian From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong Sent: 27 July 2023 06:05 To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef ; Adrian Farrel ; Linda Dunbar Cc: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) ; Roman Danyliw ; i2