Re: [I2nsf] Closing the I2NSF WG

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

Thank you very much for your leadership in steering the I2NSF to its 
competition.

Many thanks to the I2NSF WG participants and reviewers.

Linda

From: Roman Danyliw 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; The IESG ; Linda Dunbar 
; Yoav Nir ; Patrick Lingga 
; skku-iotlab-members 
; Younkyeong Nam ; 
John Jeong ; Younjee Jeong ; 
Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Closing the I2NSF WG

Hi Paul and Patrick!

I’d also like to thank you for your leadership in completing the core YANG data 
models.  Your efforts are why we are done.

Roman

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 7:37 PM
To: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>; The IESG 
mailto:i...@ietf.org>>; Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>; 
skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Younkyeong Nam mailto:younkye...@gmail.com>>; John Jeong 
mailto:john.younse...@gmail.com>>; Younjee Jeong 
mailto:younjeeje...@gmail.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoonp...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the I2NSF WG

Hi Roman,
I sincerely appreciate your kind guidance and help to let us finish our I2NSF 
WG successfully.

Our dear WG Chairs, Linda and Yoav,
I thank you so much for having shown us your sincere dedication and devotion to 
our I2NSF WG for the last 8 years (since August in 2015).
Without your leadership, it was impossible to achieve our goals in the I2NSF 
charter.

Also, I give my sincere thanks to the I2NSF WG, many reviewers, and the IESG 
for our charter work items.

In addition, I thank my Ph.D Student, Patrick Lingga, for his helping the 
design and refactoring of the YANG data models
for our five I2NSF YANG data model documents.
Without his help, I could not finish the huge work in those YANG data models.

I give my thanks to my wife (Younkyeong Nam), my son (John Jeong), and my 
daughter (Rebecca Jeong).
They encouraged me to work hard on the IETF work and prayed for me to finish 
this work. :-)

God bless each of you!

I am looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco at IETF 117 this July.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: paulje...@skku.edu<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>, 
jaehoon.p...@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 7:59 AM Roman Danyliw 
mailto:r...@cert.org>> wrote:
Hi WG!

Congratulations on your efforts to document the I2NSF architecture and specify 
the supporting models to implement it.  This took a sustained engagement and 
significant community engagement.  Thank you for a job well done!

With the last of planned work items just approved and consistent with 
discussions at IETF 113-116, the WG is being closed.  The mailing list 
(https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf ) will remain open for discussion 
of any errata or implementation issues that might arise; and the list archive 
will remain online.  Additionally, the I2NSF datatracker entry will also stay 
active (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2nsf/about/)

Regards,
Roman
(Responsible AD for I2NSF)
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] Agenda for last I2NSF WG session

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

Here is the agenda for the last I2NSF WG meeting. Thank you all for the hard 
work.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-116-i2nsf/

Please let us know if we missed anything.

Thank you
Linda & Yoav
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] Are there topics to discuss for IETF 116? FW: IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF participants, 

I2NSF WG gets a 90 minutes meeting slot during IETF116 on Thurs March 30 at 
4-5:30pm per the preliminary agenda. 
We would like to hear if you have any worthwhile topics to discuss during the 
precious IETF meeting week. If not, we can give the meeting slot to other WGs. 

Thanks, Linda & Yoav
  

-Original Message-
From: WGChairs  On Behalf Of IETF Agenda
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 4:26 PM
To: Working Group Chairs 
Subject: IETF 116 Preliminary Agenda

IETF 116
Yokohama, Japan
March 25-31, 2023
Hosted By: WIDE


The IETF 116 preliminary agenda has been posted. The final agenda will be 
published on Friday, March 3, 2023.  

If you would like to request a change to the preliminary agenda, please send a 
message to supp...@ietf.org and copy all relevant Area Directors.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F116%2Fagenda.html=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C45c7d1cd288f4411005808db16b61dfb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638128743695931641%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=ZWrKKObWO%2BgY8jfH4syiiKw103LlhSs5jyTXrluOfaA%3D=0
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F116%2Fagenda.txt=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C45c7d1cd288f4411005808db16b61dfb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638128743695931641%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=96efsYhibnUtT%2BZeS3WIyN0PhCt3hSQrTmG6dHWoorg%3D=0

The preliminary agenda includes all planned WG, RG, and BoF sessions. 
Information about side meetings will be available when the final agenda is 
posted. 

Thank you!

IETF Secretariat

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

[I2nsf] FW: [Secdispatch] NomCom: Selecting IETF Leadership

[Linda Dunbar]

All,


The NomCom is tasked with selecting the IETF leadership, like the IESG and the 
IAB. For the NomCom to be able to make an informed decision, they need feedback 
from the wider IETF community.


Please, allocate some time to provide feedback on people that you interacted 
with to help the NomCom with their important task.

The deadline for this feedback is Nov 28.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2022/feedback/


Regards,
Linda
___
Secdispatch mailing list
secdispa...@ietf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch__;!!GjvTz_vk!SKwhT9OawHZb9mitB3qObvUfpcQMniITTHUdFw5jRBl_vNZI9dgQSWNOI1lfOzZCoywbZV8xXYVMOHJbjxr3$
 
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] Please send your slides for the I2NSF Session (Re: I2NSF session in IETF 115 has been changed to Tuesday morning 9:30am-11:30

[Linda Dunbar]

Please send your slides for the I2NSF session.

Also please note that the I2NSF session in IETF 115 is changed to Tuesday
morning 9:30am - 11:30am at Richmond 3


Linda


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

[I2nsf] I2NSF session in IETF 115 has been changed to Tuesday morning 9:30am-11:30

[Linda Dunbar]

Please note that the I2NSF session in IETF 115 is changed to Tuesday
morning 9:30am - 11:30am at Richmond 3
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/floor-plan?room=richmond-3>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/agenda/

I look forward to seeing you there.

Linda

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:14 PM Linda Dunbar 
wrote:

> I2NSFers,
>
> Our AD asks if we want to swap the I2NSF session in IETF115 to Tuesday
> 9:30am-11:30m.
>
> Are you all available?
>
> Please let us know ASAP.
>
> Linda
>
>
> On 10/27/22, 4:27 PM, "Roman Danyliw"  wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I2NSF is currently schedule for the LAST session of IETF 115 on
> Friday.  I know that isn't a desirable time.  If I can pull it off, would
> it be acceptable to you for me to swap I2NSF into the Tuesday morning 0930
> - 1130 slot (where JWP) is currently landed.
>
> Let me know ASAP!
>
> Roman
>
> ___
> 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

[I2nsf] Are people available for the I2NSF session to be held on Tuesday morning 9:30am-11:30? IETF 115 session swap for I2NSF

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSFers, 

Our AD asks if we want to swap the I2NSF session in IETF115 to Tuesday 
9:30am-11:30m. 

Are you all available? 

Please let us know ASAP. 

Linda
 

On 10/27/22, 4:27 PM, "Roman Danyliw"  wrote:

Hi!

I2NSF is currently schedule for the LAST session of IETF 115 on Friday.  I 
know that isn't a desirable time.  If I can pull it off, would it be acceptable 
to you for me to swap I2NSF into the Tuesday morning 0930 - 1130 slot (where 
JWP) is currently landed.

Let me know ASAP!

Roman

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

[I2nsf] preliminary agenda for I2NSF WG in IETF115

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF participants,

Here is the preliminary agenda for I2NSF WG in IETF115: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/agenda-115-i2nsf-00
Please let us know if you have more to add or need to change.

Thanks,

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

Re: [I2nsf] Request for review and comments of Extensions to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) YANG Model draft-dbb-netmod-acl-01

[Linda Dunbar]

Oscar,

Does the YANG models specified by the enhanced Access Control List draft
impact what has been specified in I2NSF drafts?

Linda

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 9:37 AM Oscar González de Dios <
oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com> wrote:

> Dear i2nsf colleagues,
>
> FYI, it may be of interest to the participants of I2NSF WG the
> draft on enhanced Access Control Lists which has been submitted to netmod.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dbb-netmod-acl
>
> The draft presents a set of enhancements to the Access Control
> Lists Yang Model of RFC 8519 based on operational experiences, such as
> manipulating Lists of  Prefixes, creating Aliases or Defined Sets,
> IPv4/IPv6 Fragment Handling, better TCP Flags Handling, among others (see
> the draft for the whole set of proposals).
>
> We would like to receive feedback on the proposed extensions.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Oscar
>
> 
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-dbb-netmod-acl-01.txt has been successfully
> submitted by Mohamed Boucadair and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Name:   draft-dbb-netmod-acl
> Revision:   01
> Title:  Extensions to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) YANG Model
> Document date:  2022-06-29
> Group:  Individual Submission
> Pages:  26
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dbb-netmod-acl-01.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbb-netmod-acl/
> Htmlized:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dbb-netmod-acl
> Diff:   https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-dbb-netmod-acl-01
>
> Abstract:
>RFC 8519 defines a YANG data model for Access Control Lists (ACLs).
>This document discusses a set of extensions that fix many of the
>limitations of the ACL model as initially defined in RFC 8519.
>
> Discussion Venues
>
>This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
>
>Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Modeling
>Working Group mailing list (net...@ietf.org), which is archived at
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/.
>
>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
>https://github.com/oscargdd/draft-dbb-netmod-enhanced-acl.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> 
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
> destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is confidential and
> privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
> it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
> ___
> 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

[I2nsf] Planning for the I2nsf session at IETF115

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF participants:

We have one session at IETF115 Friday, 11 November 2022, 1200-1330

Please let us know any topics that you are interested in discussing.

Linda & Yoav


On 10/14/22, 5:38 PM, ""IETF Secretariat""  wrote:

Dear Linda Dunbar,

The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request. 


i2nsf Session 1 (1:30 requested)
Friday, 11 November 2022, Session II 1200-1330
Room Name: Mezzanine 1-4 size: 50
-


iCalendar: 
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F115%2Fsessions%2Fi2nsf.icsdata=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C0ad57526d8e140cdcce508daae34d667%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638013839231862213%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=%2BJBR7izyEewMMsYp4KtorcHDG93EtYKh1Yd9dFz%2FmcE%3Dreserved=0

Request Information:


-
Working Group Name: Interface to Network Security Functions
Area Name: Security Area
Session Requester: Linda Dunbar


Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s): 
Number of Attendees: 20
Conflicts to Avoid: 




People who must be present:
  Linda Dunbar
  Roman Danyliw
  Susan Hares
  Yoav Nir

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:

-



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

Re: [I2nsf] Is there I2NSF WG session?

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you for the proposed charter. We can have a session in IETF 115 to
discuss.

Linda

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:44 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
jaehoon.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Linda and Yoav,
> Is there an I2NSF WG session in IETF 115 in London?
>
> Since we have finished all the five I2NSF YANG drafts,
> we can finalize the Re-chartering text and request the
> approval of the IESG.
>
> Here is the Re-chartering text:
> ---
>
> Charter for Working Group
>
>
> Introduction
>
> ===
>
>
> Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) provides security function
> vendors, users, and operators with a standard framework and interfaces for
> cloud-based security services. The I2NSF framework for those security
> services consists of I2NSF User, Security Controller, Network Security
> Functions (NSF), Developer’s Management System (DMS), and I2NSF Analyzer.
>
>
> Goals
>
> ===
>
>
> I2NSF Working Group (WG) will standardize a framework and interfaces for
> security management automation in an autonomous security system. For this
> goal, it is necessary to have a closed-loop security control consisting of
> security policy configuration, monitoring, notification, data analysis,
> analytics information delivery, and security policy (re)configuration.
> However, the following are needed for I2NSF:
>
>
> 1. The I2NSF framework needs to be extended to provide Security Management
> Automation to a target network through a closed-loop security control. For
> this Security Management Automation, I2NSF WG needs to identify which
> system components and interfaces are required. Also, it enumerates and
> analyzes what services are required for the I2NSF system.
>
>
> 2. The I2NSF framework needs a new interface (called Analytics Interface)
> to deliver feedback messages for a security policy from I2NSF Analyzer to
> Security Controller, or to share them among collaborating domains. In
> addition, a proper translation of the planned actions for a given security
> policy onto NSF capabilities requires a well-defined model for representing
> these actions in the Security Controller.
>
>
> 3. The I2NSF framework needs Security Policy Translation from a high-level
> security policy to a low-level security policy. To build a security policy
> translator, a fundamental understanding is required for the relationship of
> Consumer-Facing Interface and NSF-Facing Interface. An exemplary
> architecture and procedure will be used for a security policy translator.
>
>
> 4. I2NSF is vulnerable to insider and supply chain attacks. The security
> system may collapse if there is a malicious attack to the NSF capabilities
> registration, the I2NSF user security policies declaration, the Security
> Controller, or the monitoring data from an NSF. To prevent this malicious
> activity from happening in the I2NSF framework or detect the root of a
> security attack, all the activities in the I2NSF framework should be logged
> for auditing in a security audit system (e.g., remote attestation and
> Blockchain).
>
>
> 5. I2NSF can support IPsec Management for BGP routers in a centralized way
> of Software-Defined Networking (SDN). I2NSF's Security Controller can be in
> charge of IPsec parameter setting and key management for BGP routers which
> establish IPsec sessions for their BGP message exchanges in a secure way.
> For IPsec for BGP over IPsec, an interface can be defined for SDN-based
> IPsec flow protection
>
> in BGP.
>
>
> 6. I2NSF needs to support recently developed protocols such as QUIC and
> HTTP/3. For this support, the I2NSF YANG data models, which are Capability,
> Consumer-Facing Interface (CFI), NSF-Facing Interface (NFI), Registration
> Interface (RI), and Monitoring Interface(MI), need to be extended to
> accommodate those recently developed protocols.
>
>
> Program of Work
>
> ===
>
>
> The I2NSF working group's deliverables include:
>
>
> 1. A single document for security management automation in the I2NSF
> framework. This document will initially be used to enhance the I2NSF
> framework for security management automation. It can be used as an
> applicability document to handle various requirements and possible
> approaches for such security management automation in real environments.
>
>
> 2. A YANG data model document for I2NSF Analytics Interface to deliver
> analytics information from I2NSF Analyzer to Security Controller.
>
>
> 3. A single document for Guidelines for Security Policy Translation to
> support the mapping between a high-level YANG module and a low-level YANG
> module. This document can get feedback from NMRG and OPSAWG for the
> synchronization with the translation work in those groups.
>
>
> 4. A YANG data model document for Remote Attestation Interface for the
> remote attestation for I2NSF components, based on the work of the RATS WG.
>
>
> 5. A YANG data model document for BGP Interface for IPsec for BGP over
> IPsec, based on 

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-21

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-21 as None on behalf of the I2NSF 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/


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

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23 as None on behalf of the I2NSF 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/


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

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm has been closed.

[Linda Dunbar]

Many thanks to additional reviewers for providing the comments. And thanks to 
the authors revised the draft 7 times to address the comments during the second 
WGLC.
We are now closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-23
We will revise the shepherd writeup and send the document to IESG for approval.

Linda & Yoav.


From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:17 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: need more review and support to close the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

I2NF WG,

draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due to lack 
of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There appeared to be 
limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/MFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04/>

To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for publication 
is needed.
We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the people 
who are not the authors.

Thank you
Linda Dunbar
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

[Linda Dunbar]

Sue,

Thank you very much for the explanation.
I add the following to the agenda: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-114-i2nsf/
- Interface to IPsec for BGP over IPsec (i.e. YANG data models) (10 min): Sue 
Hares

Is it good?

Linda
From: Susan Hares 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:55 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

Linda:

I apologize for being unclear.  We ran into a few problems with trying to 
complete the BGP Yang model in the area of IPsec links.   BGP runs over TCP 
over IPsec links in some scenarios.  When creating the modeling, it was unclear 
which Yang modules were targeted to support this feature.

What I need is advice from the I2NSF and the IPSECME on the place to ask for 
work additions to support BGP peers.

The scenario is between two BGP routers. The type of IPsec connections between 
BGP routers can be:

  *   within a trusted cloud (same administrative domain, same trust cloud),
  *   across a physically secure private link,
  *   across the open Internet (where attacks happen).

The key is we want to configure and monitor the IPsec link.

As BGP co-authors looked at this, I did not understand which group to ask help 
from.  I volunteered to  ask for help.

If you or anyone can point me to where to go without taking valuable WG time, 
it would be great.  If you need me to explain more on email, I'd be glad to.

Rather than just pose this question from the Mike-line, I thought I'd ask ahead 
of time.

Cheers, sue

From: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 6:09 PM
To: Susan Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>; 
i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded


Sue,

Are you talking about IPsec between two trusted nodes?
Something different from the IPsecme WG?

Linda

From: Susan Hares mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; 
i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

Linda:

In the recharter discussion, is it appropriate to ask about specific items such 
as additions to ipsec work in I2NSF?
I do not have a draft for this work.

Sue

From: I2nsf mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:44 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded


I2NSF WG,

Here is the agenda for next week's I2NSF session (Tuesday).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-114-i2nsf/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fagenda-114-i2nsf%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C267a8505e30e4779d59e08da6a46ad82%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637939149038446246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=EUrfh%2FMrU8J9i36Tn8VN5gDRIWXu4D34vaOsIPgsGdI%3D=0>

Please let me know if I miss anything.

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

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

[Linda Dunbar]

Sue,

Are you talking about IPsec between two trusted nodes?
Something different from the IPsecme WG?

Linda

From: Susan Hares 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

Linda:

In the recharter discussion, is it appropriate to ask about specific items such 
as additions to ipsec work in I2NSF?
I do not have a draft for this work.

Sue

From: I2nsf mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:44 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded


I2NSF WG,

Here is the agenda for next week's I2NSF session (Tuesday).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-114-i2nsf/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fagenda-114-i2nsf%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8b5d4da98b89456a579d08da69c1548c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637938576342441642%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C=N040a56pN%2BLVElz5IOt4jddwoHRH1pKTpTkAPMhd%2BD4%3D=0>

Please let me know if I miss anything.

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

[I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

Here is the agenda for next week's I2NSF session (Tuesday).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-114-i2nsf/

Please let me know if I miss anything.

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

[I2nsf] Is the updated IPR license good with you? (was FW: need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom,

The draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm is pending on resolving your 
comment of the IPR issue.

Can you please review and let the group know if the updated license ok?
So we can move the draft forward to IESG.

Thank you very much
Linda Dunbar

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:13 PM
To: tom petch ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Linda Dunbar ; Susan Hares ; 
Jeongnyeon Kim ; skku-iotlab-members 
; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

Hi Tom and I2NSF WG,
Let me report the status of IPR Declaration on I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface 
YANG Data Model Draft and other drafts.
My SKKU Patent Attorney (Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim) posted an IPR declaration on this  
I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5694/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5694%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344268885841%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=d4o9timReVpCbFLe8rlX8e8DrTIB8bHZ9OJBknpon38%3D=0>

According to my request, Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim has requested the update of the 
licensing last week as follows:
-
If this standard is adopted, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU) will not assert any 
patents owned or controlled by SKKU against any party for making, using, 
selling, importing or offering for sale a product that implements the standard, 
provided, however that SKKU retains the right to assert its patents (including 
the right to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it 
owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) against SKKU or any of SKKU's 
affiliates or successors in title or against any products of SKKU or any 
products of any of SKKU's affiliates either alone or in combination with other 
products; and SKKU retains the right to assert its patents against any product 
or portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the standard. 
Royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who prefers that option.
-
The above licensing was agreed by our I2NSF WG before.
This update is expected to be done next week.

For other I2NSF WG drafts, the update requests of the same correction of the 
licensing text
have been submitted by Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim.
- I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5689/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5689%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344268885841%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=MQ3Wxsmtk3NxqxI5npDOASn8eLlKmeGCk%2F2yDd1E4QQ%3D=0>

- I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5690/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5690%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344269042118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=qKEdEPkKlerAExWlbGIynr5Es5ODgJN3fFfK6QNORXo%3D=0>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5691/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5691%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344269042118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=16kgFfMpnMfKHLml5OgUxxYN0adppmVNtf3VnNyMLvI%3D=0>

- I2NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5692/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5692%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344269042118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=z8LIDe1QGXiFdwLvNNvc2capn%2B7NsEFa38HeNAcRJcA%3D=0>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5693/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fipr%2F5693%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca75024027d9a4ab6c20408da66d0ce70%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637935344269042118%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=tptezRZK3y7Aft8WJRN6TNCr%2FKm2UZW7Ht82MzDoWCg%3D=0>

- I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5695/<https://nam1

[I2nsf] any topics to discuss at the I2NSF session in IETF114?

[Linda Dunbar]

Dear I2NSF participants,

I2NSF has a One hour slot on Tuesday (13:30-14:30 EST) during IETF114.
Please let us know if you have any topics to discuss during IETF114.

Thank you
Linda & Yoav
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Sue,

Thank you very much for the offer.

The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom hasn't 
sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.

Linda

From: Susan Hares 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

Linda:

I will review the document by  Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of the 
document.   Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not addressed?

Cheers, Sue

From: I2nsf mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm


I2NF WG,

draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due to lack 
of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There appeared to be 
limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D=0>

To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for publication 
is needed.
We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the people 
who are not the authors.

Thank you
Linda Dunbar
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NF WG,

draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due to lack 
of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There appeared to be 
limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/MFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04/>

To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for publication 
is needed.
We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the people 
who are not the authors.

Thank you
Linda Dunbar
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17 to address 
all the comments from YANG Doctor review, SecDir review and OpsDIR review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-dm-17
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/

This poll runs until July 1, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

Linda

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

[I2nsf] I2NSF WG status update

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG participants:

Yesterday I2NSF WG reached a big milestone with 2 RFCs being approved by IESG 
for publication. Many thanks to the WG and authors for the tireless work in 
addressing all the comments along the way. It has been a long process.

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model'
  (draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-31.txt) as Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'I2NSF Network Security Function-Facing Interface YANG Data Model'
  (draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-27.txt) as Proposed Standard

In addition, the draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-18 has got enough 
support from IESG review to move forward, now waiting for our AD Roman's final 
review.

The authors have requested WG LC for the following two I2NSF WG drafts:
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-18
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-16

I2NSF Chairs will complete the Shepherd review this week, request early review 
from Ops/Sec Directorates,  and issue the WGLC.

At IETF 113,  we discussed re-chartering proposal. Some people felt that the 
scope of work proposed is exceeding the expertise of the participants.  We need 
to continue the discussion on the mailing list to make the objectives align 
with the expertise of the contributors.

Do people feel that we need a session at IETF114 to finalize the proposal?

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

[I2nsf] comments draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-18

[Linda Dunbar]

Dear Authors:

The Abstraction of the document says:
This document describes an information model and a YANG data model
   for the Consumer-Facing Interface between an Interface to Network
   Security Functions (I2NSF) User and Security Controller in an I2NSF
   system in a Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) environment.

The consumer interface is on the North side of the Security Controller. Is the 
following description more accurate?

This document describes an information model and a YANG data model for the 
Consumer-Facing Interface of the Security Controller in an I2NSF system in a 
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) environment.  The information model 
defines various types of managed objects and the relationship among them needed 
to build the flow policies from users' perspective.

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

[I2nsf] What is the next step for the three i2nsf drafts that have enough IESG support to pass?

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

The following three I2NSF YANG drafts got enough ballots to pass through the 
approval of the IESG.
The IESG State still shows "AD Followup".
Is there anything that Authors can do to accelerate the process to move forward 
to RFC publication?


- Capability YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

- NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/

- Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/


Need your help.

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

[I2nsf] Questions to draft-lingga-i2nsf-application-interface-dm-02

[Linda Dunbar]

Patrick, Paul, and Yunchul,

Based on the Figure 1, the "Application Interface" is for exchanging 
information between the Security Controller and the I2NSF Analyzer.  Then the 
Figure 2 shows that the Application Interface has "Policy Reconfiguration" from 
NSF name, Problem, and solution. Can you give some examples of the "problem or 
issues in the NSF"?

Isn't "Policy Reconfiguration" same as different sequences of the commends to 
the NSFs (Section 3.1)?

"Policy reconfiguration" works together with the three I2NSF interfaces defined 
for the I2NSF Framework


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

[I2nsf] comments to draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-03

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul, Patrick, Jung-Soo,

Since you listed draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation as one of the 
area for I2NSF Rechartering work item, I am curious what kind of information 
need to be exchanged between "Security Controller" and the "Security Audit 
System"?

Does the "Security Audit System" need to change information between NSFs?  What 
kind of information needs to be exchanged if Yes?

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

Re: [I2nsf] Narrowing down the scope of work for the I2NSF Re-Chartering

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

IESG doesn't like fancy acronyms, mentioning Block chain without describing the 
 additional features won't go very far.

Suggest to have a narrower scoped work proposal, so that it is more likely to 
get IESG approval.

Comments to your suggested work items for I2NSF Rechartering are inserted below:


From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 2:51 AM
To: Linda Dunbar 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Roman Danyliw ; Yoav Nir 
; tom petch ; Susan Hares 
; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA ; JungSoo 
Park ; Yunchul Choi ; Patrick Lingga 
; Jeong Hyeon Kim ; 
Younghan Kim ; Panwei (William) 
; Henk Birkholz ; 
yangpenglin ; Kyoungjae Sun 
; Hyunsik Yang ; 
skku-iotlab-members ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
Jeong 
Subject: Re: Narrowing down the scope of work for the I2NSF Re-Chartering

Hi Linda and Yoav,

I would say that the theme of this I2NSF Re-Chartering is "Security Management 
Automation".
This theme is based on 7-year I2NSF standardization and hackathon projects with 
our I2NSF WG colleagues.

May I suggest three more work items in addition to your proposed work items?

The following three work items can be handled with focus along with the CCed 
I2NSF WG colleagues
as coauthors and contributors:
---
1. Security Service Management through Leveraging I2NSF Framework and Interfaces
- Main Contents
 . An Extension of I2NSF Framework for Intelligent Security Management 
Automation
 . Distributed Auditing Services for Supply Chain Attacks and Insider Attacks 
by Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Remote Attestation
 . Support of Containers for I2NSF in Cloud Native Systems
 . Support of Other Contemporary Technologies for I2NSF such as Quantum Key 
Distribution (QKD) and Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC)

[Linda] The above items should be already covered by the existing I2NSF 
Charter, except I don't know what additional features required by QKD and PQC 
to NSF or Consumer facing interfaces.



2. I2NSF Application Interface YANG Data Model
- Main Contents
 . A New I2NSF Interface for Feedback-control-loop-based Security Management 
Automation
 . Support of Feedback Information Delivery from I2NSF (Data) Analyzer to 
Security Controller for Security Policy Augmentation and Generation
[Linda] Can Application interface YANG Data model be covered by "Consumer 
facing" interface? If not why?
3. Guidelines to Security Policy Translation for I2NSF-Based Security 
Enforcement
- Main Contents
 . A Relation between I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface and NSF Facing-Interface
 . Handling of Default Actions for a High-level Security Policy to be 
translated to a Low-level Security Policy
 . Population of Information for Security Policy Translation (e.g., mapping of 
IP addresses for users and devices)
 . Implementation Guidelines for Security Policy Translator (will be put as 
Appendix rather than main text)
[Linda] I can see this being the potential work item for the rechartering.

Linda

---

As you know, my SKKU team with ETRI demonstrated the feasibility of those three 
work items through the past I2NSF Projects.

For the 1st work item, this provides autonomous security management services to 
minimize human engagement for security services.
The I2NSF extension for this autonomous security management is explained by my 
new I2NSF I-D:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-03<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-03=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C56912b91156d4740dcd408da13b4799e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637843963123356743%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=2Ok0aDHdpx%2Ft36oaWiOfeIntayLaTd8cfEDtc0kqQc0%3D=0>

As a use case, a new outside (or inside) security attack is detected and 
blocked by an I2NSF system.
For this, an NSF reports monitoring data of a suspicious activity to an I2NSF 
Analyzer (as a new component which is
a data collector and a data analyzer with machine learning), which is defined 
in the above I-D.

The I2NSF Analyzer analyzes the monitoring data and diagnoses what is a problem 
or security attack.
The I2NSF Analyzer makes a feedback report to a Security Controller so that the 
Security Controller can augment
its existing security policy or generate a new security policy to cope with the 
problem or security attack.

The involved security functions include the following steps:
1. The monitoring data delivery from an NSF to an I2NSF Analyzer,
2. The analysis of the monitoring data at the I2NSF Analyzer,
3. The constru

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 113 session in comparing draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom,

Answers to your questions are inserted below in Blue:

-Original Message-
From: t petch 
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:12 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Roman Danyliw ; 
i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Patrick Lingga ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: IETF 113 session in comparing 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

On 01/04/2022 22:48, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Consumer facing Interface commands don't need to differentiate v4 or v6.
> For example Kubernetes Cluster Scoped Network Policies use Cluster
> names, not even the IP addresses:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs
> .google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1Jk86jtS3TcGAugVSM_I4Yds5ukXFJ4F1ZCvx
> N5v2BaY%2Fedit%23slide%3Did.g401c104a3c_0_0data=04%7C01%7Clinda.d
> unbar%40futurewei.com%7Ca05e3fa9884c459f464c08da161ad60a%7C0fee8ff2a3b
> 240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637846601766141559%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
> D%7C3000sdata=WkQCW%2B1YTBRt4igP4ts7UE3ZUN7o2boxdG2rYus55xA%3D
> p;reserved=0
>
> Comments and replies are inserted below:

Linda

I still do not see an answer to my uncertainty about the meaning of a 
capability e.g. if a box supports some 'type' or 'code' for icmpv4 (and nothing 
for icmpv6 or DCCP), then what capability does that constitute, what can it 
advertise as supporting?  What will appear in the leaf-list in 
condition-capabilities as imported by the I-D registration-interface?

[Linda] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8192/ has good description of why 
need "Capability" of each NSF. In a nutshell, to provide effective and 
competitive solutions and services, security service providers may need to 
utilize multiple security functions from various vendors to enforce the 
security policies desired by  their customers.
There are many virtual security functions by different vendors available to be 
deployed to achieve "Customer" desired policy. The "Security Controller" can 
choose the NSFs with the desired "Capability" per "Customer Interface" 
specified policies for a service.





Or, turning the question around, how much must it support to justify 
advertising the YANG 'type' capability (which is derived from a base of icmpv4, 
icmpv6 or DCCP)?
[Linda] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation/ 
describes the mechanism to translate "Customer Interface" security requests to 
the actual policies to NSF.

My concern, perhaps unwarranted, is that the resolution of the DISCUSS for 
capability may have a ripple effect on the YANG identity in other I-D, such as 
consumer-facing.

[Linda] Thank you very much for helping improving the draft quality. All your 
questions definitely has helped shaping up the drafts.

Tom Petch

> -Original Message-----
> From: t petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 6:08 AM
>
> On 28/03/2022 18:23, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> As Sue Hares said:
>>
>>"The first stage of a yang model is joyous. You decide what goes in.   The
>>second of getting a prototype yang model  implementation is hard work.  
>> The
>>third stage of getting the model approved in the IETF environment is
>>frustrating and painful.During the second and third stage, most WGs 
>> have
>>trouble keeping up the energy - since it is all about the small details of
>>Yang."
>>
>> All the I2NSF YANG models are at their third stage, with small changes, 
>> which is difficult for non-editors to keep up.
>> Can you review Paul and his team revisions before they upload revision?
>
> Linda
>
> I continue to see capability as the core I-D which the other I-D are then 
> based on and I still see an outstanding DISCUSS against it.  I am unclear 
> whether or not capability -26 (or -29 AFAICT) addresses Ben's point, that the 
> meaning of a capability is not sufficiently defined in a way that will bring 
> interoperability.
> [Linda] Agree with you that capability should be the base that other I-D can 
> references. But for attributes that unique to a specific interface, they 
> should be specified in their corresponding I-D.
>
> As an example, capability specifies icmpv4 and icmpv6 and then uses
> these two, along with DCCP, as base for identity type. consumer-facing
> has a single icmp-message, no differentiation between icmpv4 and
> icmpv6, and derives from it echo and echo-reply, each of which is for
> both
> icmpv4 and icmpv6.
> [Linda] Consumer facing Interface commands should be allowed to use more 
> abstract name. Doesn't need to nail down to v4 or v6. It is the security 
> Controller's job t

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 113 session in comparing draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom,

Consumer facing Interface commands don't need to differentiate v4 or v6.
For example Kubernetes Cluster Scoped Network Policies use Cluster names, not 
even the IP addresses:  
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jk86jtS3TcGAugVSM_I4Yds5ukXFJ4F1ZCvxN5v2BaY/edit#slide=id.g401c104a3c_0_0

Comments and replies are inserted below:


-Original Message-
From: t petch 
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 6:08 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Roman Danyliw ; 
i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Patrick Lingga ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: IETF 113 session in comparing 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

On 28/03/2022 18:23, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Tom,
>
> As Sue Hares said:
>
>   "The first stage of a yang model is joyous. You decide what goes in.   The
>   second of getting a prototype yang model  implementation is hard work.  The
>   third stage of getting the model approved in the IETF environment is
>   frustrating and painful.During the second and third stage, most WGs have
>   trouble keeping up the energy - since it is all about the small details of
>   Yang."
>
> All the I2NSF YANG models are at their third stage, with small changes, which 
> is difficult for non-editors to keep up.
> Can you review Paul and his team revisions before they upload revision?

Linda

I continue to see capability as the core I-D which the other I-D are then based 
on and I still see an outstanding DISCUSS against it.  I am unclear whether or 
not capability -26 (or -29 AFAICT) addresses Ben's point, that the meaning of a 
capability is not sufficiently defined in a way that will bring 
interoperability.
[Linda] Agree with you that capability should be the base that other I-D can 
references. But for attributes that unique to a specific interface, they should 
be specified in their corresponding I-D.


As an example, capability specifies icmpv4 and icmpv6 and then uses these two, 
along with DCCP, as base for identity type. consumer-facing has a single 
icmp-message, no differentiation between icmpv4 and icmpv6, and derives from it 
echo and echo-reply, each of which is for both
icmpv4 and icmpv6.
[Linda] Consumer facing Interface commands should be allowed to use more 
abstract name. Doesn't need to nail down to v4 or v6. It is the security 
Controller's job to translate to the corresponding icmpv4 or icmpv6 depending 
on the security function supports ipv4 or IPv6.

If a simple box supports icmpv4 only and echo/echo-reply only, what capability 
does that constitute? (How does a user know that DCCP is not supported?).
[Linda] At the consumer interface level, users might not need to know if DCCP 
is supported or now. Not sure why users need to know if DCCP is supported or 
not?


With hindsight, Ben's question is so obvious I wonder how I did not see it.  I 
think that it applies to much of capability (e.g. http, as another AD 
suggested).  I believe that the question can be addressed by text, as opposed 
to revamping the model (such as by taking the identity structure to a finer 
level of detail) but I am not the one with a DISCUSS - it is up to the IESG to 
be satisfied by whatever resolution is proposed.  Perhaps they will be 
satisfied with capability-26 but it is now for them to say.
[Linda] I hope authors can address the AD's concern.

Thank you very much for helping shaping the data model. Really appreciate your 
help.
Linda


Tom Petch



>
>   Thank you very much for your continued support to improve the YANG models.
>
> Linda
>
> -Original Message-
> From: t petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 12:10 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar 
> mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Roman Danyliw
> mailto:r...@cert.org>>; i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
> Cc: Patrick Lingga 
> mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
> Jeong
> mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: IETF 113 session in comparing
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm &
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm
>
> On 25/03/2022 14:39, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> At IETF 113 I2NSF session, we had a good discussion of the comparison of 
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm, from Top Level YANG Tree, Event, 
>> Condition and Action.
>>
>> Here is the summary:
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdat
>> a
>> tracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F113%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-113-i2nsf-compa
>> r
>> ison-of-consumer-facing-and-nsf-facing-data-models-00data=04%7C0
>> 1
>> %7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cb8b83f05fa904d406b2008da0e824533%7C
>> 0
>> fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6378382499256

[I2nsf] Narrowing down the scope of work for the I2NSF Re-Chartering

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF Rechartering Proponents,

I re-read all the emails exchanged about I2NSF Re-Chartering plus the 
discussion minutes at IETF113, I concluded the 2 key points:

  *   The proposed Rechartered work is too broad, the scope of work is to wide,
  *   We don't have enough people and expertise to cover all the proposed work.

Therefore I would like to suggest prioritizing the work items based on 
available expertise, and choose the highest 3~4 work items for the I2NSF 
rechartering.

With the current available expertise among the I2NSF participants, we can 
confidently tackle the following work items. Therefore I think they should be 
high on the priority list of the rechartering.


  *   Work around the remote attestation of NSF in I2NSF architecture, 
including the YANG Data Model.
  *   Add the support recently developed protocols such as QUIC and HTTP/3.
  *   Develop the YANG module of IPsec policies to functions embedded in nodes 
running BGP.

For the proposed work item of the Interface tot eh Data Analysis Entities, I am 
wondering if the work is similar to the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model?

For the proposed work item of "controlling container deployments in Cloud 
Native NFV architecture", I am not sure how different between the "Interface to 
NSF" vs. the "interface to Container".

Can you please chime in to express your opinion?

Thank you
Linda

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 2:38 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Roman Danyliw ; Panwei (William) 
; Henk Birkholz ; 
tom petch ; yangpenglin ; 
Susan Hares ; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA 
Subject: [I2nsf] Request for Comments, Interest and Support in I2NSF 
Re-Chartering

Hi I2NSF WG,
As you know, our I2NSF WG will discuss the I2NSF Re-Chartering
at IETF-113 I2NSF WG Session today.

I attach the text of the re-chartering as pdf and txt files.

Our five core I2NSF YANG data model drafts are almost completed.

1. Capability YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-27

2. NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-22

3. Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-16

4. Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-17

5. Registration Interface YANG Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-15


The three of them (i.e., 1, 2, and 3) got the feedback of the IESG and
the revisions have 

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 113 session in comparing draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom,

As Sue Hares said:

  "The first stage of a yang model is joyous. You decide what goes in.   The
  second of getting a prototype yang model  implementation is hard work.  
The
  third stage of getting the model approved in the IETF environment is
  frustrating and painful.During the second and third stage, most WGs 
have
  trouble keeping up the energy - since it is all about the small details of
  Yang."


All the I2NSF YANG models are at their third stage, with small changes, which 
is difficult for non-editors to keep up.
Can you review Paul and his team revisions before they upload revision?

 Thank you very much for your continued support to improve the YANG models.

Linda

-Original Message-
From: t petch 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Roman Danyliw ; 
i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Patrick Lingga ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: IETF 113 session in comparing 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

On 25/03/2022 14:39, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Tom,
>
> At IETF 113 I2NSF session, we had a good discussion of the comparison of 
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm, from Top Level YANG Tree, Event, 
> Condition and Action.
>
> Here is the summary:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
> tracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F113%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-113-i2nsf-compar
> ison-of-consumer-facing-and-nsf-facing-data-models-00data=04%7C01
> %7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cb8b83f05fa904d406b2008da0e824533%7C0
> fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637838249925611459%7CUnknown
> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=PpLBu4%2FqvNKaNfjTmtBZQlL6%2B3zjHcx815DA3
> IqzG74%3Dreserved=0
>
> Since you didn't join the discussion, can you please look over the comparison 
> and see if they are any issues?

Linda

I did look at the slides when they arrived.

What I deduced some time ago, and see that the current charter specifies, is 
that it is the Capability Layer that has primacy, that 'Only simple Service 
Layer policies that are modelled as closely as possible on the Capability Layer 
are within scope.'  It is then a question not of how close Consumer Facing and 
Network Facing are (and yes, they are close) but how close each is to 
Capability.  I note that since I reviewed capability-26 there have been three 
new versions of that and that the IESG have yet to confirm that the DISCUSS on 
capability have been resolved; and while -29 has a change log - good - it only 
gives the changes from -28 (best practice IMHO is have a change log going back 
to the -00 that precedes adoption) so I have to look at
-27 to see what it changed and -28 to see what it changed (and no, I do not 
want a .pdf giving OLD and NEW; a statement that e.g. references to
RFC4960 have been replaced with references to rfc4960bis I find much quicker to 
deal with).

So, when the IESG are satisfied with capability I will look at the current 
version and the others that have come out in-between and then look at the other 
I-D after that; and yes, the I-D will likely be in the RFC Editor Queue by 
then:-(.

IN passing, a comment that others have made and which I would endorse is that 
the authors seem unfamiliar with the usage of 'i.e.' and 'e.g.'
which in places changes the technical meaning.  I suspect that that will still 
be the case in the most recent I-D.

Tom Petch
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Linda Dunbar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: t petch mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:03 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>; Linda Dunbar
> mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; 
> i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
> Cc: Patrick Lingga 
> mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
> Jeong
> mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16
>
> On 20/03/2022 16:45, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Linda: Thanks sending out this assessment and ending the WGLC.
>>
>> WG: In additional to the IPR check, one other thing I will be looking for in 
>> the second WGLC of this document is (a) evidence of review by the WG and (b) 
>> support by the WG to publish it (irrespective of whether there is charter 
>> milestone or not).  There has been very little WG discussion of this 
>> document on the mailing list in the last 18 months and no formal meetings 
>> with it as a topic.   Most discussions have been between a reduced set of 
>> document authors and directorates reviews/IETF LC/IESG balloting feedback.  
>> The last three documents sent to 

[I2nsf] IETF 113 session in comparing draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom, 

At IETF 113 I2NSF session, we had a good discussion of the comparison of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm & 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm, from Top Level YANG Tree, Event, 
Condition and Action. 

Here is the summary: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-i2nsf-comparison-of-consumer-facing-and-nsf-facing-data-models-00

Since you didn't join the discussion, can you please look over the comparison 
and see if they are any issues? 

Thank you very much, 

Linda Dunbar

-Original Message-
From: t petch  
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:03 AM
To: Roman Danyliw ; Linda Dunbar ; 
i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Patrick Lingga ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16

On 20/03/2022 16:45, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Linda: Thanks sending out this assessment and ending the WGLC.
>
> WG: In additional to the IPR check, one other thing I will be looking for in 
> the second WGLC of this document is (a) evidence of review by the WG and (b) 
> support by the WG to publish it (irrespective of whether there is charter 
> milestone or not).  There has been very little WG discussion of this document 
> on the mailing list in the last 18 months and no formal meetings with it as a 
> topic.   Most discussions have been between a reduced set of document authors 
> and directorates reviews/IETF LC/IESG balloting feedback.  The last three 
> documents sent to the IESG (-capability-data-model, monitoring-data-model, 
> nsf-facing-interface-dm) have required substantial changes due to AD review, 
> directorate review and IESG Review (to include them all still being blocked 
> with multiple (2-4) DISCUSSes).  I want to make sure that all future 
> documents the WG requests publication on have gotten the needed review in the 
> WG.

Roman

Yes!

I see capability-data-model as being the core I-D from which the others stem 
(ideally with a common module of YANG and definitions:-).  I was still catching 
up with the repeated revisions of that when nsf-facing and nsf-monitoring went 
forward. IMHO the IESG could have had a easier time if the lessons of 
capability had been applied to the latter two before seeking to progress them; 
easy to say in hindsight.

I think Ben's DISCUSS on capability 2/2/22 are key.  He points out that the 
level of detail expected is unclear.  What does monitoring on a routing header 
mean?  All of them, including future ones, any one or what?  Obvious now Ben 
has said so but I never thought of it. Looking back at RFC8329 I see no mention 
of routing headers being part of this work (where are the authors of RFC8329 
when we need them?).  Ben also comments that a base capability is ambiguous - 
can it be used per se as in derived-from-or self or only as derived-from?  
Likewise the resolution strategies are obvious until Ben points out that they 
are not defined anywhere that he (or I) can see.  I note that one of them has 
disappeared from capabiity -26 but like most of the changes to this and the 
other I-Ds, there is no consensus for this change because there has been no 
discussion within the WG.

This lack of consensus is to me the defining characteristic of the I2NSF WG.  
At AD review you asked for expanded definitions in a few cases and got them 
which seemed fine.  Then a ..art reviewer asks for a whole lot more and gets 
them.  As I commented, to me this is a lack of familiarity on the part of the 
..art reviewer and for most people involved, like you, like me, like other 
..art reviewers, the existing definitions are adequate.  And this is a 
multi-headed hydra because the new text takes the I-D out of line with the 
other I-D (my bane), with other parts of the same I-D, and, as many have 
commented, the English often needs attention and so any change to the text is 
likely to generate further change and may even be unclear or worse.  The 
changes made generate issues faster than I can point them out so the number of 
unfixed issues increases exponentially.  Several of Ben's or Lars's textual 
comments I have marked in my copy as issues to raise when I have raised the 
larger, more 
 technical ones; I could have saved Ben and Lars some time (as a WG should do).

Out of many such I would highlight the use of 'l4' or 'layer4'.  Some time ago 
I pointed out that this was unusual in the IETF, 'transport' 
being more common and this was duly changed in the identity.  A reviewer of 
nsf-monitoring found the word 'port', used in the context of ipv4/ipv6, 
ambiguous and suggested 'l4port' which was duly incorporated in some parts of 
that particular I-D and not in others and not in the other I-Ds (my bane 
again).  As before, I think the need to qualify 'port' is more of a comment on 
the reviewer and not on the I-D:-) Had the issue been raised on the list I 
would have objected!

So:
- the rate of change on these I-Ds is hig

Re: [I2nsf] Need note takers for Thurs I2NSF WG session at 13:00 Vienna time

[Linda Dunbar]

Sue,

Thank you very much,

Linda

From: Susan Hares 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 12:39 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Need note takers for Thurs I2NSF WG session at 13:00 
Vienna time

I will take minutes.

Sue

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 1:36 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] Need note takers for Thurs I2NSF WG session at 13:00 Vienna 
time

I2NSF participants,

I2NSF Session will be on Thurs 13:00 Vienna time in Park Suite 2.
Here are the items to be discussed in the session:

I2NSF Remote Attestation Interface YANG Data Model
- Penglin Yang - 15 minutes
   draft-yang-i2nsf-remote-attestation-interface-dm-00
   - Focus: is it within the scope of RATS?

i2nsf-registration-facing-interface-dm
- Paul Jeong Jaehoon - 10 minutes
   draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-facing-interface-dm

Comparison of Consumer Facing and NSF Facing Data Models
- Focus: similarity and differences between the Consumer facing and NSF facing 
DM

--- Recharter discussion 30 minutes ---

- Proponents: Diego Lopez (Telefonica), Penglin Yang (China Mobile), Panwei 
(Huawei), Paul Jeong Jaehoon, Henk Birkholz
- Focus:
1) is the proposed work already covered by RATS?
2) is there energy to continue the work?

We need note takers for the session. Actually everyone, especially the 
speakers,  is encouraged to monitor the notes and make adjustments to the notes.

Thank you very much
Linda & Yoav
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] Need note takers for Thurs I2NSF WG session at 13:00 Vienna time

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF participants,

I2NSF Session will be on Thurs 13:00 Vienna time in Park Suite 2.
Here are the items to be discussed in the session:

I2NSF Remote Attestation Interface YANG Data Model
- Penglin Yang - 15 minutes
   draft-yang-i2nsf-remote-attestation-interface-dm-00
   - Focus: is it within the scope of RATS?

i2nsf-registration-facing-interface-dm
- Paul Jeong Jaehoon - 10 minutes
   draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-facing-interface-dm

Comparison of Consumer Facing and NSF Facing Data Models
- Focus: similarity and differences between the Consumer facing and NSF facing 
DM

--- Recharter discussion 30 minutes ---

- Proponents: Diego Lopez (Telefonica), Penglin Yang (China Mobile), Panwei 
(Huawei), Paul Jeong Jaehoon, Henk Birkholz
- Focus:
1) is the proposed work already covered by RATS?
2) is there energy to continue the work?

We need note takers for the session. Actually everyone, especially the 
speakers,  is encouraged to monitor the notes and make adjustments to the notes.

Thank you very much
Linda & Yoav
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG, 

Since the comments from Tom Petch haven't been addressed, we can't complete the 
WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16. 
Agree with Tom, the WG needs to reach consensus if it is necessary for the  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm to be consistent with the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm. 

Thank you, 
Linda Dunbar

-Original Message-
From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of t petch
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Patrick Lingga ; 
skku-iotlab-members 
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16

On 02/03/2022 14:40, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Patrick and I are finalizing the revision of the NSF-Facing Interface 
> YANG Data Model Draft this week.

If I read it aright, the cut-off for updated I-D for the upcoming IETF is next 
Monday. after which the system is in purdah for a while.  The IETF website 
might tell me about the latter (if it had a search  engine:-)

Tom Petch




> After this revision, we will reflect the comments from IESG on this 
> Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:31 PM t petch  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17/02/2022 17:00, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>>> Hello Working Group,
>>>
>>> Many thanks to the authors to address all the comments from YANG 
>>> Doctor
>> review.
>>>
>>> This email starts a three-weeks Working Group Last Call for
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdat
>> atracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-
>> dm%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b962cbb4
>> 208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6378
>> 18384373805664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
>> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=F7VLxYYqc6kpxD3
>> w15O7Lewbot4zMgkGcozhpKViuJY%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> I think that this is premature.  As ever, there is substantial 
>> overlap with other I-D in the set, notably nsf-facing, and, as ever, 
>> the two I-D do things differently which I think can only confuse.  If 
>> there is a reason for the differences, then that needs calling out 
>> IMHO; at the moment it seems arbitrary, such as which ...art reviewer last 
>> saw the I-D!
>>
>> Further, nsf-facing has just attracted a large number of comments 
>> from IESG Review, many if not most of which apply here.  I think it 
>> wrong for the IESG to be asked to do the same work all over again so 
>> I think that the IESG comments on nsf-facing need resolving with the 
>> IESG first and then the agreed solution - I expect that most of the 
>> comments by the IESG will be accepted - can be incorporated into this I-D.
>>
>> Choice of protocols, reference for protocols, way of specifying 
>> ranges of numbers, indeed way of specifying at all, string language, 
>> volte,
>> RFC793 redundant, all those comments by Alexey on lack of clarity, 
>> Rob's comments on identity descriptions, example labelling and so on.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>> This poll runs until March 10, 2022.
>>>
>>> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that 
>>> applies to
>> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance 
>> with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>>> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, 
>>> please
>> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of 
>> any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without 
>> answers from all the Authors and Contributors.
>>>
>>> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet 
>> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> I2nsf mailing list
>>> I2nsf@ietf.org
>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>>> w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi2nsfdata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dun
>>> bar%40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b962cbb4208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a3b
>>> 240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637818384373805664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
>>> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M
>>> n0%3D%7C3000sdata=0WQB3KY3kIBLT9Dl5xemMrTLAMYolmsqtXj

[I2nsf] Planning for IETF 113

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

I2NSF will have a one-hour session during IETF 113 on Thurs March 24. Here are 
the proposed topics:


  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf/
  *   The proposed  I2NSF rechartering

If you have other topics, please let us know as soon as possible.
For re-chartering, it is necessary to differentiate from RATS work. RATS also 
proposed re-chartering. One important question for the discussion: is it under 
the scope of RATS?

Here is the IETF 113 preliminary agenda: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/agenda/

Thank you
Linda & Yoav
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors to address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three-weeks Working Group Last Call for  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/

This poll runs until March 10, 2022.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

Linda

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

Re: [I2nsf] Anyone will be coming to IETF 113?

[Linda Dunbar]

Looks like many of the proponents won’t be traveling to IETF 113. Since the 
IETF113 meeting slots are very limited due to hybrid meeting style, we can have 
a virtual interim meeting to discuss the initiatives.

Thanks, Linda & Yoav

From: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org; Jaehoon (Paul) 
Jeong ; Diego R. Lopez 
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Anyone will be coming to IETF 113?

Hi Linda，

I will attend the meeting online. I am revising the trust-enhanced-i2nsf draft 
for NSF-granularity remote attestation. We can discuss it then.


Penglin


From: Linda Dunbar<mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>
Date: 2022-01-22 00:41
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>; Jaehoon (Paul) 
Jeong<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>; 
yangpeng...@chinamobile.com<mailto:yangpeng...@chinamobile.com>; Diego R. 
Lopez<mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>
Subject: [I2nsf] Anyone will be coming to IETF 113?
Paul, Diego, PengLin, and others,

You have proposed new work to I2NSF. Some of the content might have overlap 
with RATS WG. If you will be coming to IETF113, we can schedule an I2NSF 
session to discuss the work, the overlap and how to move forward the work.

Please let us know.

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

[I2nsf] Anyone will be coming to IETF 113?

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul, Diego, PengLin, and others,

You have proposed new work to I2NSF. Some of the content might have overlap 
with RATS WG. If you will be coming to IETF113, we can schedule an I2NSF 
session to discuss the work, the overlap and how to move forward the work.

Please let us know.

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

Re: [I2nsf] Proposed extended charter for I2NSF

[Linda Dunbar]

Just want to add a concrete example of  Analyzer needing other network domain 
security intelligence.
For example NSFs within AWS VPC needing Analytics from AWS Cloud Watch: AWS 
re:Inforce 2019: The Fundamentals of AWS Cloud Security (FND209-R) - 
YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ObImxw1PmI>

[cid:image003.jpg@01D7F19C.C87A7620]


My two cents.

Linda Dunbar

From: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:38 AM
To: Diego R. Lopez ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
; chenmeiling ; Patrick 
Lingga ; ANTONIO AGUSTIN PASTOR PERALES 
; Linda Dunbar 

Cc: skku-iotlab-members 
Subject: Re: Proposed extended charter for I2NSF

Hi Diego and all，

Generally I think the outline of charter is fine, but three suggestions I think 
are useful for the development of NSF.

  *   Cross-domain security intelligence sharing. Take the example of Analyzer, 
Analyzer may need other network domain's security intelligence as reference  to 
make decision, or it wants to share its threat intelligence to cooperate with 
partner to promote the security capability of NSF. The requirements of this 
threat intelligence sharing mechanism should be auditable, undeniable and 
tamper-resistant. Block-chain based architecture is one of the proper 
solutions. Finally, the NSF architecture could be used and spread in a more 
wide range like cross-company, cross-domain, or even cross-country cooperation. 
And I do think NSF with this mechanism will be much more viable.  In order to 
achieve that, we need to design the future NSF architecture with redundancy and 
flexibility that could be used to expand and develop.
  *   New technologies keep emerging up, like confidential computing, 
homomorphic encryption, computing in network, etc.  We don't have to adopt 
these new techs to NSF immediately, but pay attention to them maybe helpful.
  *   Do we have to restrict the deliverables as the listed documents, or the 
listed documents are not used for ruling out other documents.

BR
Penglin




From: Diego R. Lopez<mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>
Date: 2021-12-14 15:51
To: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com<mailto:yangpeng...@chinamobile.com>; Mr. 
Jaehoon Paul Jeong<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>; 
chenmeiling<mailto:chenmeil...@chinamobile.com>; Patrick 
Lingga<mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>; ANTONIO AGUSTIN PASTOR 
PERALES<mailto:antonio.pastorpera...@telefonica.com>; Linda 
Dunbar<mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>
CC: skku-iotlab-members<mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Proposed extended charter for I2NSF
Hi,

As mentioned during our call today, this is the extended charter we are 
planning to propose for I2NSF:

8<
--


Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) provides security function 
vendors, users, and
operators with a standard framework and interfaces for cloud-based security 
services. I2NSF
enables the enforcement of a high-level security policy, which is expressed 
according to a user's
perspective of the target network. This security policy enforcement in I2NSF is 
a data-driven
approach using NETCONF/YANG or RESTCONF/YANG, where a security policy is 
constructed
based on a YANG data model.

The current I2NSF framework consists of four components such as I2NSF User, 
Security Controller,
Network Security Function (NSF), and Developer's Management System (DMS). The 
I2NSF
User specifies a high-level security policy for a target network. The Security 
Controller is aware
of the capabilities of the attached NSFs, using them to build the security 
service(s) satisfying
the policy expressed by the I2NSF User. An NSF provides a set of specific 
security capabilities
(e.g., firewalling, web filtering, packet inspection, and DDoS-attack 
mitigation), applying security
policy rules. The DMS registers the capabilities of an NSF with the Security 
Controller.

The current I2NSF framework has four interfaces such as Consumer-Facing 
Interface, NSF-Facing
Interface, Registration Interface, and Monitoring Interface. Consumer-Facing 
Interface is used
to deliver high-level security policies from the I2NSF User to the Security 
Controller. NSF-Facing
Interface is used to deliver low-level security policies from the Security 
Controller to an NSF.
The Registration Interface is used to register the capabilities of an NSF with 
the Security
Controller. The Monitoring Interface is used to collect monitoring data from an 
NSF.

The goal of I2NSF is to define a set of software interfaces and data models of 
such interfaces
for configuring, maintaining, and monitoring NSFs in cloud environments, 
including NFV and
edge deployments. For security management automation in an autonomous security 
system,
I2NSF needs to have a feedback control loop consisting of security policy 
configuration in an
NSF, monitoring for an NSF, 

Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

[Linda Dunbar]

Diego,

Thank you for the list. I have some questions inserted below:

Linda

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of Diego R. Lopez
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:45 AM
To: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

Hi,

Many thanks for this. The integration of I2NSF with the recent results in the 
area of remote attestation is one of the aspects we wanted to consider in an 
I2NSF rechartering proposal we are finalizing and will share on the list soon. 
Actually, our ideas go along the following issues to improve the I2NSF approach 
to security function management:

  *   The automation of security management procedures, considering the 
integration with general automation and autonomic mechanisms, as defined by the 
OPS Area

[Linda] This seems a very big area. Are you talking about Best Practices for 
Security management procedures? Is it possible to carve out a portion related 
to network security functions?



  *   Mechanisms for guiding and verifying policy translation
[Linda] Can you elaborate what are the input and out of the  “Policy 
translation” so that we can understand the feasibility?


  *   The implications for security management of recent developments:
 *   Remote attestation procedures
[Linda] Is this within the scope of RATS WG? If not, can you explain?


 *   Trusted and oblivious execution models
[Linda] Do you mean execution models on the Network Security Functions?


 *   Container-based virtualization approaches
[Linda] Do you mean Container-based Network Security Functions?


 *   Quantum-safe crypto (PQC, QKD…)
 *   Distributed trust and execution infrastructures (along the work of 
DINRG and COINRG)
  *   An extended capability model, suitable for the above items

As you can imagine, we very much welcome this document and would be extremely 
interested in collaborating with you in developing it and the general approach 
to enhance trust in SFs managed through I2NSF.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/

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

On 02/12/2021, 04:46, "I2nsf on behalf of 
yangpeng...@chinamobile.com" 
mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of 
yangpeng...@chinamobile.com> wrote:

Hi everyone,

This is Penglin Yang from China Mobile Research Institute.  Recently, we 
composed a document named  trust enhanced I2NSF and submitted to the I2NSF 
group. 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf/) The 
motivation of this document is trying to use remote attestation technology to 
augment the security and to enhance the trustworthiness of NSF. In this 
document we illustrated the architecture of trsuted enhanced I2NSF and the 
relevant interfaces.

We sincerely welcome everyone to comment on this document. And if you are 
interested, we can work together to promote this idea to a better version.

BR
Penglin Yang
CMCC




Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede 
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la 
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda 
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin 
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha 
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente 
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. 
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not 
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this 
communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode 
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa 
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica 
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização 
pode estar proibida em virtude da 

Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

[Linda Dunbar]

PengLin,

Can you send a calendar invite to me? I will try to join.

Linda

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of yangpeng...@chinamobile.com
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:32 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku-iotlab-members ; 
Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

Hi Paul,

Is next Tuesday 10 am GM +8 available for you?  ( If my guessing is right, you 
are in GM +9 timezone, that means your local time would be 11am ? )
Here is the meeting link by Microsoft Teams. I am not sure if it will work 
between us.  
https://teams.live.com/meet/95442375483586
Or if you have better e-meeting solutions we could follow your arrangement. 
That will be very appreciated.

BR
Penglin


From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Date: 2021-12-06 13:13
To: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com
CC: i2nsf@ietf.org; 
skku-iotlab-members; Mr. Jaehoon 
Paul Jeong
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf
Hi Penglin,
I will be available for an online meeting next week.
Please let me know the meeting date and time.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:39 AM 
yangpeng...@chinamobile.com 
mailto:yangpeng...@chinamobile.com>> wrote:
Hi Paul,

It will be great that we could work together on this draft. Maybe we could set 
up a meeting sometime when you are available.
Since this draft is still in the early version, I think the suggestion about 
Endorser and interface compliance could be fully considered and make the final 
decison together.

BR
Penglin







From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Date: 2021-12-04 14:10
To: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com
CC: i2nsf@ietf.org; 
skku-iotlab-members; Mr. Jaehoon 
Paul Jeong
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf
Hi Penglin,
I am Paul in charge of I2NSF YANG Data Models such as NSF Capability, 
Consumer-Facing Interface,
NSF-Facing Interface, Monitoring Interface, and Registration Interface.

I have read through your draft about remote NSF attestation interfaces and
I became to know that your work is well-assigned to the next step of I2NSF WG
for security management automation in the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation/

The NSF attestation is very important to provide customers with stable and 
trustworthy
I2NSF-based security services.

However, we need to clarify the new components of your draft such as Endorser, 
Verifier/Relying Party,
Reference Value Provider, and RoT (Root of Trust).
Endorser is defined in 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture
 as follows:
Endorser: A role performed by an entity (typically a manufacturer) whose 
Endorsements help
Verifiers appraise the authenticity of Evidence.

I think Endorse can be part of Developer's Management System (DMS) because DMS 
is
an entity to provide the capability information of its NSF to Security 
Controller and also
a virtualized NSF image as a VNF or container to the I2NSF framework.

The overall structure of YANG modules of Trust Enhanced NSF Monitoring 
Interface and
Trust Enhanced Registration interface look good to me.
However, we need to make sure that these two new interface data models need to 
comply with
the structure of NSF Monitoring Interface 

Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

[Linda Dunbar]

Penglin,

Your explanation is very helpful.

Can you please add them to the draft? Also, make sure the work is not in 
conflict with RAT.

Thank you,

Linda Dunbar

From: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com 
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 2:46 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

Hi Linda，

Thank you for your concern about this proposal. I think your questions are very 
meaningful,  and here is my response. First of all, I think the three questions 
are all aobut if we trust the rmote environment in where deploys NSF. If we 
don't trust the environment, the threats may happen. So this document tries to 
figure out a general way to mitigate that kinds of threats and enhance the 
security of the NSF itself.

1，These threats are applicable to any netowrk functions deployed in remote 
environment that the manager cannot make sure if it is trustworthy. But in this 
document we only focus on the NSF.
2，Consider a secuiry company provides NSF in which contains lots of policy 
rules such as DDoS prevention, traffic filtering, etc. If the platform who 
carrys the NSF is malicious, it could steal this security asset for other 
purpose. The core asset of security knowledge is from the security controller, 
which provided by the security company.
3，The attackers in platfom could also disturb the action of NSF, and 
feedback the fake notification or event to security controller. That is what I 
mean spoofing attack. If the paltform is trusted, or has been remote attested, 
at least we can say the NSF is well deployed and its feedback is trustworthy. 
(In fact, about trust, there have more topics about static trust and runtime 
trust. Remote attestation could provide static trust like booting state of 
platform, installation of software, or file changing in system. Other techs 
like "confidential computing" could provide an isolated CPU and memory area 
that users can trust it during running time. This tech is still in developing 
stage, there is no standard yet. But I do think in the future 
security-sensitive scenarios will use it. )


Hope my answer could solve your problem.



BR
Penglin


From: Linda Dunbar<mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>
Date: 2021-12-03 11:56
To: yangpeng...@chinamobile.com<mailto:yangpeng...@chinamobile.com>; 
i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf
PengLin,

Thank you very much for posting the draft in I2NSF WG.
A few questions to your proposal:


1.  Are the three threats in Section 3.2 specific to Network Security 
Functions? Or applicable to any network functions?

2.  The Second Threat is the leak of policy rules and core asset of security 
knowledge.  Where do the  “policy rules” leaked to?  The “core asset of 
security knowledge” is from network operators? Or is it to the Network Security 
Functions?

3.  The “third threat on potential spoofing attack to the NSF architecture”. 
Are the spoofing attack also applicable to any network functions? Is “spoofing 
attack” addressed by RAT?

Thank you
Linda Dunbar

From: I2nsf mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
Of yangpeng...@chinamobile.com<mailto:yangpeng...@chinamobile.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:46 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

Hi everyone,

This is Penglin Yang from China Mobile Research Institute.  Recently, we 
composed a document named  trust enhanced I2NSF and submitted to the I2NSF 
group. 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cb6ebadbdbfc146fa3c3d08d9b6394f30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637741179539422179%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=LokE3SrpNN5lYxJVojc2XxPoZxJv%2BvFgdzTzfSWKj1s%3D=0>)
 The motivation of this document is trying to use remote attestation technology 
to augment the security and to enhance the trustworthiness of NSF. In this 
document we illustrated the architecture of trsuted enhanced I2NSF and the 
relevant interfaces.

We sincerely welcome everyone to comment on this document. And if you are 
interested, we can work together to promote this idea to a better version.

BR
Penglin Yang
CMCC

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

Re: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

[Linda Dunbar]

PengLin,

Thank you very much for posting the draft in I2NSF WG.
A few questions to your proposal:


  1.  Are the three threats in Section 3.2 specific to Network Security 
Functions? Or applicable to any network functions?
  2.  The Second Threat is the leak of policy rules and core asset of security 
knowledge.  Where do the  "policy rules" leaked to?  The "core asset of 
security knowledge" is from network operators? Or is it to the Network Security 
Functions?
  3.  The "third threat on potential spoofing attack to the NSF architecture". 
Are the spoofing attack also applicable to any network functions? Is "spoofing 
attack" addressed by RAT?

Thank you
Linda Dunbar

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of yangpeng...@chinamobile.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:46 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] topic about draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf

Hi everyone,

This is Penglin Yang from China Mobile Research Institute.  Recently, we 
composed a document named  trust enhanced I2NSF and submitted to the I2NSF 
group. 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-trust-enhanced-i2nsf/) The 
motivation of this document is trying to use remote attestation technology to 
augment the security and to enhance the trustworthiness of NSF. In this 
document we illustrated the architecture of trsuted enhanced I2NSF and the 
relevant interfaces.

We sincerely welcome everyone to comment on this document. And if you are 
interested, we can work together to promote this idea to a better version.

BR
Penglin Yang
CMCC

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

[I2nsf] Updated Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-16

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

The Shepherd Writeup has been updated to reflect the changes and progress made 
through IETF LC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/shepherdwriteup/

The IESG State is now on "Waiting for Writeup". What "Writeup" it is waiting 
for? Can I help for the writing?

Thank you very much,

Linda Dunbar

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

[I2nsf] Updated Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-21

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

The Shepherd Writeup has been updated to reflect the changes and progress made 
through IETF LC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/shepherdwriteup/

The YANG module in this document does reference RFC 8805. Therefore, added the 
following sentence to Question 15:

  Yes, the YANG model described in the document has reference to RFC8805 
which is an Informational RFC.

The IANA Expert replied "Looks Good" for the IANA Review three days ago. Who to 
contact for changing the IANA Experts States to "Expert Reviews OK"?

Thank you very much,

Linda Dunbar

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

Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: RFC 9061 on A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)

[Linda Dunbar]

Congratulations on finally reaching the RFC!  It is a very long journey.

Thank you
Linda



On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:43 AM Rafa Marin-Lopez  wrote:

> Dear I2NSF WG members:
>
> Authors would like to thank to all I2NSF WG members and reviewers of this
> document. Without them, it would have not been possible to achieve this
> goal.
>
> It was a pleasure to work with you.
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> *Asunto: **[I2nsf] RFC 9061 on A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow
> Protection Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)*
> *Fecha: *15 de julio de 2021, 8:17:35 CEST
> *Para: *ietf-annou...@ietf.org, rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
> *Cc: *i2nsf@ietf.org, drafts-update-...@iana.org,
> rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
>
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
>RFC 9061
>
>Title:  A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection
>Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
>Author: R. Marin-Lopez,
>G. Lopez-Millan,
>F. Pereniguez-Garcia
>Status: Standards Track
>Stream: IETF
>Date:   July 2021
>Mailbox:r...@um.es,
>gab...@um.es,
>fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es
>Pages:  90
>Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>
>I-D Tag:draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-14.txt
>
>URL:https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9061
>
>DOI:10.17487/RFC9061
>
> This document describes how to provide IPsec-based flow protection
> (integrity and confidentiality) by means of an Interface to Network
> Security Function (I2NSF) Controller.  It considers two main
> well-known scenarios in IPsec: gateway-to-gateway and host-to-host.
> The service described in this document allows the configuration and
> monitoring of IPsec Security Associations (IPsec SAs) from an I2NSF
> Controller to one or several flow-based Network Security Functions
> (NSFs) that rely on IPsec to protect data traffic.
>
> This document focuses on the I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface by providing
> YANG data models for configuring the IPsec databases, namely Security
> Policy Database (SPD), Security Association Database (SAD), Peer
> Authorization Database (PAD), and Internet Key Exchange Version 2
> (IKEv2). This allows IPsec SA establishment with minimal intervention
> by the network administrator. This document defines three YANG
> modules, but it does not define any new protocol.
>
> This document is a product of the Interface to Network Security Functions
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
> This is now a Proposed Standard.
>
> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
> suggestions
> for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for
> the
> standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this
> memo is unlimited.
>
> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
>
> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
>
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
> unlimited distribution.
>
>
> The RFC Editor Team
> Association Management Solutions, LLC
>
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>
> ---
> Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD
> Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
> 30100 Murcia - Spain
> Telf: +3486501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: r...@um.es 
> ---
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

[Linda Dunbar]

The suggested change is reasonable. No objection.

Linda Dunbar

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Rafa Marin-Lopez  wrote:

> Dear I2NSF WG members:
>
> We have received a suggestion from the RFC editor about a possible change
> in the title:
>
> Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection —>
>
> A* YANG Data Model for Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow
> Protection*
>
> We think this is reasonable and it is inline with the document.
>
> If you do not have any objection, we can apply this change. Any thoughts?
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> *Asunto: **Re: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061
>  NOW AVAILABLE*
> *Fecha: *10 de junio de 2021, 22:58:29 CEST
> *Para: *r...@um.es, gab...@um.es, fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es
> *Cc: *rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org, i2nsf-...@ietf.org, i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org,
> ynir.i...@gmail.com
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> 1) 
>
>
> 2) 
>
>
> 3) 
>
>
> 4) 
>
>
> 5) 
>
>
> 6) 
>
>
> 7) 
>
>
> 8) 
>
>
> 9) 
>
>
> 10) 
>
>
> 11) 
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/ap/jm
>
> On 6/10/21 3:55 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> *IMPORTANT*
>
> Updated 2021/06/10
>
> RFC Author(s):
> --
>
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> your approval.
>
> Planning your review
> -
>
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>
> *  RFC Editor questions
>
>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>   follows:
>
>   
>
>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>
>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>
> *  Content
>
>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>   change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>   - contact information
>   - references
>
> *  Copyright notices and legends
>
>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>
> *  Semantic markup
>
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that 
>   and  are set correctly.  See details at
>   <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
>
> *  Formatted output
>
>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>
>
> Submitting changes
> --
>
> To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following,
> using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see
> your changes:
>
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
>
> Section # (or indicate Global)
>
> OLD:
> old text
>
> NEW:
> new text
>
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>
>
> Approving for publication
> --
>
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s
> tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’
> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
>
>
>

Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom, 

What you suggested seems pretty simple to fix. Hope the authors will address 
them soon. 
p.s. the YANG doctor review  didn't mention using this style. 

Thank you very much. 

Linda

-Original Message-
From: tom petch  
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 5:24 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

From: Linda Dunbar 
Sent: 27 April 2021 16:49
Tom,

Can you please provide the concrete suggestions to the authors on the changes 
you like to see?


Linda

I hope that you are still happy:-)

I thought some more (a bad habit of mine:-) about range and exact values and 
wonder why capability splits them into two separate identity.  This is not what 
the YANG modules say.

The usual way to model this is with a start and end and a comment that if only 
one value is required, then start equals end.  This is widely used throughout 
the IETF and is indeed used in draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec which has the 
approval of the IESG.  

So, since the YANG always AFAICT allows both range and exact value, then why 
split them in capability?  Not wrong, but seems an unnecessary complication 
adding some 25 extra identity.

I can imagine a chip designer saying I can exact match at wire speed but not 
range match; but as I say, that is not what we have in the YANG.  It could be 
in the YANG e.g. as a feature but isn't in any IETF YANG module that I know of 
so chip designers are probably cleverer than I imagine!

Tom Petch

This is the second time of the WGLC for the draft. It would be very helpful to 
hear your suggestions during the WGLC window.

Thank you very much
Linda

-Original Message-
From: tom petch 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

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

Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[Linda Dunbar]

Tom, 

Can you please provide the concrete suggestions to the authors on the changes 
you like to see? 

This is the second time of the WGLC for the draft. It would be very helpful to 
hear your suggestions during the WGLC window. 

Thank you very much
Linda

-Original Message-
From: tom petch  
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

From: I2nsf  on behalf of Linda Dunbar 

Sent: 27 April 2021 16:06

I2NSF WG,

As expected, there is no issue with the second time WGLC for  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model.


Sigh, I did not know there was a Last Call in progress, I did not see that on 
the datatracker:-(  I spent last week going round in circles trying to dovetail 
the five I2NSF YANG modules and this morning finally decided that it could not 
be done.

The general concern I have is that there are a number of YANG modules that are 
doing the same thing in different ways, with different terminology, different 
technology, which is going to give the user heartache IMHO

Today I read RFC8329 hoping that it would give one clear set of right 
terminology but it does not help much; thus s.9.2 therein is rather vague with 
question marks in places.  The various YANG modules are clearly in the same 
ballpark as the RFC but perhaps not on the same base e.g. the RFC has pass, 
deny, mirror while this I-D has pass, drop, alert, mirror and differences like 
that are repeated many times.  In places, that may be by design but in others I 
believe that it is not  I will post some more concrete examples on Wednesday.  
I will seek to use 'capability' as the base, the refer4ence, and point out 
where the other four diverge

I would say that sdn-ipsec gets it right but I also note that the IESG made in 
excess of 150 changes to the I-D before approving it which I think on the one 
hand was necessary but on the other hand seems a profligate use of AD time.   
More could have been done beforehand IMHO.

Tom Petch

This email is to confirm that the WGLC for the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 is completed. We will move this draft 
to IESG.

Thank you very much for the work.

Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:37 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

Hello Working Group,

When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in 
Dec 2019 
(https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fi2nsf%2F%3Fq%3Ddraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%26f_from%3DLinda%2520Dunbardata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416364721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000sdata=gTCjj1AgX850nVjMqwhSUYpi261P%2FIEPVEDlzY%2FuVs8%3Dreserved=0
 ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which was 
stale.

After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and 
requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in  Oct 
2020  
(https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fi2nsf%2F%3Fq%3Ddraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%26f_from%3DLinda%2520Dunbardata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416374715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000sdata=CwsgBrh%2FRpLX2x5TP%2BplrmO1ckr3VO4F56TN21h5LOM%3Dreserved=0)


Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG Doctor 
review and

This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on 
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C2db646bb15a843e2627508d909934590%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637551350416374715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000sdata=RDAu7tXiFbH1WtgyJo2KL1idgWJ3s6pwQjVvJ60TLM8%3Dreserved=0

This poll runs until April 13, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the 
I2NSF working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/


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

[I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

As expected, there is no issue with the second time WGLC for  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model.

This email is to confirm that the WGLC for the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 is completed. We will move this draft 
to IESG.

Thank you very much for the work.

Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:37 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

Hello Working Group,

When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in 
Dec 2019 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model_from=Linda%20Dunbar
 ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which was 
stale.

After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and 
requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in  Oct 
2020  
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model_from=Linda%20Dunbar)


Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG Doctor 
review and

This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

This poll runs until April 13, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

Linda & Yoav

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

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in 
Dec 2019 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model_from=Linda%20Dunbar
 ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which was 
stale.

After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and 
requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in  Oct 
2020  
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model_from=Linda%20Dunbar)


Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG Doctor 
review and

This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

This poll runs until April 13, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

Linda & Yoav

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

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 as None on behalf of the I2NSF 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/


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

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 has been completed

[Linda Dunbar]

Many thanks to the authors of the  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06, IPR disclosure, and addressing 
all the comments from YANG Doctors.

WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 is officially closed.

Thank you for your hard work and patience.
Linda & Yoav.


From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 6:25 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model@ietf.org
Subject: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06


Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 to 
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/
This poll runs until March 26, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

Re: [I2nsf] IETF-110 I2NSF Hackathon Project

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul and SKKU team,

Thank you very much for Hackathon demonstrating the I2NSF running code.

Great work!

Linda

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 8:23 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: skku-iotlab-members ; Mr. Jaehoon 
Paul Jeong 
Subject: [I2nsf] IETF-110 I2NSF Hackathon Project

Hi I2NSF WG,
My SKKU team have demonstrated the security management automation
in this IETF-110 hackathon with our new I-D:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-01

Here is the slides file that was presented in this IETF-110 hackathon.
https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf110-project-presentations/blob/main/Slides-IETF110-I2NSF-Hackathon-Project-202010305.pdf

Here is the open-source I2NSF project:
https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework/tree/master/Hackathon-110

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department Head
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: paulje...@skku.edu, 
jaehoon.p...@gmail.com
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Andy,

The request for YANG DR review for the 06 version has been placed. The WG has 
started the WGLC process. Thank you  YANG DR!

Linda

From: Andy Bierman 
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:56 AM
To: Linda Dunbar 
Cc: Reshad Rahman ; Roman Danyliw 
; i2nsf@ietf.org; JungSoo Park ; Yunchul Choi 
; YANG Doctors ; Patrick Lingga 
; skku-iotlab-members 
; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04



On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:21 PM Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Andy and Reshad,

Does it help if I request another YANG DR review?

Yes.
I think the IESG should specify and document the procedures for follow-up YANG 
module reviews.
We should avoid undocumented ad-hoc procedures that rely on email as the sole 
collaboration tool.
IMO there should be a new review request for each updated revision.  I 
especially want to
know if the request is for an early review or WGLC review, and other contextual 
info.


Andy



Thanks, Linda

From: I2nsf mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
Of Reshad Rahman
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Cc: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>; 
i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>; JungSoo Park 
mailto:p...@etri.re.kr>>; Yunchul Choi 
mailto:cy...@etri.re.kr>>; YANG Doctors 
mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>; Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>; 
skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04



From: Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:30 AM
To: Reshad Rahman mailto:res...@yahoo.com>>
Cc: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>, Roman Danyliw 
mailto:r...@cert.org>>, "i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>" 
mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>, JungSoo Park 
mailto:p...@etri.re.kr>>, Yunchul Choi 
mailto:cy...@etri.re.kr>>, Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>, YANG Doctors 
mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>, skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04



On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:31 PM Reshad Rahman 
mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
I cannot figure out how to enter a new review in the IETF pages (even logged 
in),
I have run into the same issue in the past. You need to go to the actual review 
link, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/reviewrequest/13767/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model%2Freviewrequest%2F13767%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc47d623163bb44ba235c08d8dd8b4723%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637502937577874042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=hlYGizEvl06Ko0kZUk78lYxgdwCAiLvcInjxp5GTDrA%3D=0>
 in this case, and click on the "Correct review" button. My recollection is 
that this will create a newer version of the review.


But I am not modifying my review of the old draft.
I am entering my review of the new draft.
 Version 00 will remain as a review of the old rev. The new version will be 
a review of the new draft (you can provide a new reviewed revision).
I agree that correct review implies that you can only change the review of the 
old rev, so the button should probably be "Correct/new review" instead. Anyway 
I believe that, even though the UI is misleading, you can enter a new review 
while keeping the old review.

Regards,
Reshad.

I think a better procedure would be for the authors to request a new review for 
the updated draft.
Hopefully the same reviewer can be assigned automatically.


Regards,
Reshad.


Andy

From: yang-doctors 
mailto:yang-doctors-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf 
of Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 12:11 PM
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>, 
"i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>" 
mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>, JungSoo Park 
mailto:p...@etri.re.kr>>, Yunchul Choi 
mailto:cy...@etri.re.kr>>, Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>, YANG Doctors 
mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>, skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04

Hi,

I hav

[I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06 to 
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/
This poll runs until March 26, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Andy and Reshad,

Does it help if I request another YANG DR review?

Thanks, Linda

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Andy Bierman 
Cc: Roman Danyliw ; i2nsf@ietf.org; JungSoo Park 
; Yunchul Choi ; YANG Doctors 
; Patrick Lingga ; 
skku-iotlab-members ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
Jeong 
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04



From: Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:30 AM
To: Reshad Rahman mailto:res...@yahoo.com>>
Cc: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>, Roman Danyliw 
mailto:r...@cert.org>>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" 
mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>, JungSoo Park 
mailto:p...@etri.re.kr>>, Yunchul Choi 
mailto:cy...@etri.re.kr>>, Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>, YANG Doctors 
mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>, skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04



On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:31 PM Reshad Rahman 
mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
I cannot figure out how to enter a new review in the IETF pages (even logged 
in),
I have run into the same issue in the past. You need to go to the actual review 
link, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/reviewrequest/13767/
 in this case, and click on the "Correct review" button. My recollection is 
that this will create a newer version of the review.


But I am not modifying my review of the old draft.
I am entering my review of the new draft.
 Version 00 will remain as a review of the old rev. The new version will be 
a review of the new draft (you can provide a new reviewed revision).
I agree that correct review implies that you can only change the review of the 
old rev, so the button should probably be "Correct/new review" instead. Anyway 
I believe that, even though the UI is misleading, you can enter a new review 
while keeping the old review.

Regards,
Reshad.

I think a better procedure would be for the authors to request a new review for 
the updated draft.
Hopefully the same reviewer can be assigned automatically.


Regards,
Reshad.


Andy

From: yang-doctors 
mailto:yang-doctors-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf 
of Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 12:11 PM
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>, 
"i2nsf@ietf.org" 
mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>, JungSoo Park 
mailto:p...@etri.re.kr>>, Yunchul Choi 
mailto:cy...@etri.re.kr>>, Patrick Lingga 
mailto:patricklink...@gmail.com>>, YANG Doctors 
mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>, skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04

Hi,

I have reviewed the module in draft-05.
Thanks for the revision letter. That really helped make the review go fast.
All my draft-04 comments have been addressed.

I cannot figure out how to enter a new review in the IETF pages (even logged 
in),
so it is attached here. pyang is reporting some minor style issues.


Status: Ready with nits (see attached file)


Andy


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 7:15 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Andy,
Patrick and I have addressed your comments on the following revision:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/

[I2nsf] Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-i2nsf--nsf-monitoring-data-06

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG:

Shepherd writeup has been uploaded:  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/shepherdwriteup/

Please let me know if there is any issues with the Writeup.

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

Re: [I2nsf] Request for Moving I2NSF WG Work Forward

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you very much for making progress, resolving the comments from the YANG 
Doctors reviews. I see the draft  has reached the "Almost Ready" state.
Have all the "Moderate Issues" raised by Andy Bierman been addressed in this 
revision?

I will start to write the Shepherd Write Up this week (after I catch up all the 
left work after 2 days without power).

Best Regards, Linda Dunbar



From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:27 AM
To: Roman Danyliw ; Linda Dunbar ; 
Yoav Nir 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku-iotlab-members ; 
Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Subject: Request for Moving I2NSF WG Work Forward

Hi Roman, Linda, and Yoav,
I have submitted the NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model Draft
through the review and revision of a YANG doctor:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe997c916c8b49087c1508d8d3589f8b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637491724882193503%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=QlF7CkNBMQx%2FMfqqQtx1u%2FoaaO%2Fy5DZB09CK%2B7Y9amw%3D=0>

Roman,
I have addressed all your comments on the NSF-Facing Interface
YANG Data Model Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe997c916c8b49087c1508d8d3589f8b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637491724882203490%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=IjaRVa6xqW34Wb6VOeNESAuyLJOCCKx%2F65OpzxzIZJI%3D=0>

Could you submit it to the IESG for teleconference review?

Linda and Yoav,
Could you declare the end of WGLC of the YANG Data Model Drafts
of Consumer-Facing Interface and Registration Interface?

Then could you submit them to the IESG to let our AD Roman
review before the IESG teleconference review?

For your information, my SKKU team is preparing for another
I2NSF Hackathon Project for IETF 110, which reflects
the latest revision of our NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model Draft
on our I2NSF open source project:
https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjaehoonpaul%2Fi2nsf-framework=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe997c916c8b49087c1508d8d3589f8b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637491724882203490%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=AIi8I53N64od58FvZhreVlF04HoFYRhL%2BVHlATzDpsA%3D=0>

After the RFC publication of all the current YANG data model drafts,
we will work for the re-charter for security management automation with the 
following draft
and move to the second phase of I2NSF WG:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe997c916c8b49087c1508d8d3589f8b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637491724882213486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=kSCmjig8lqciQFupsXtGD%2FhmmiuTUGuUPDexpVbJ68s%3D=0>

Thanks for your support.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department Head
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: paulje...@skku.edu<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>, 
jaehoon.p...@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpslab.skku.edu%2Fpeople-jaehoon-jeong.php=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe997c916c8b49087c1508d8d3589f8b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637491724882213486%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=rIaQ0OGVOIYeeK87WV1MpWyyI2JIid3%2FJcdJfuKCnos%3D=0>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Requests for Comments on I2NSF WG Re-chartering Text

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you very much for the update. No worry.
Have a nice holiday.

Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 7:59 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Roman Danyliw ; skku-iotlab-members 
; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: Requests for Comments on I2NSF WG Re-chartering Text

Hi Linda and Yoav,
For I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model Draft 
(draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-13),
I need more time to finish the revision for the IESG and Tsvart.
I will try to finish the revision by December 24, 2020.
At the end of the fall semester, I am overloaded with my university work.

Thanks for your considerations.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:26 AM Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Paul,

Thank you very much for the update.
The schedule looks very good.

Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:40 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Cc: Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>; Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Requests for Comments on I2NSF WG Re-chartering Text

Hi I2NSF WG,
I have the schedule to submit our I2NSF YANG Data Model Drafts to the IESG as 
follows.

o I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model Draft
  
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e776460cdb3450db3af08d8a35d361e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637438968030569227%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=w0m%2F3KDyMmqpTDGPOeLE26dT8pi3Pw4YQPUKdsqw%2FIQ%3D=0>)
  - The revised draft for the IESG's and Tsvart's reviews will be submitted on 
December 18, 2020.

o I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft
  
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e776460cdb3450db3af08d8a35d361e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637438968030569227%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=PGvdiiDlAbttfcannW85n2swlRrWXuakv5Ael7H8OtY%3D=0>)
  - The revised draft for our AD Roman's review will be submitted on January 
18, 2021.

o I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft
  
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e776460cdb3450db3af08d8a35d361e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637438968030579226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=0LpR6mdhRgkITnNDFCMXCcjTZiVl8FZfK4cr32r71yw%3D=0>)
 - The draft will be submitted to the IESG for our AD's review on January 25, 
2021.

o I2NSF NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model Draft
  
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e776460cdb3450db3af08d8a35d361e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637438968030579226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=PZ%2BWKYREt41aMq1h0NZ6B3sbibdOSvKRWjekDOAzgU0%3D=0>)
 - The revised draft for the 1st YANG Doctor review will be submitted to the 
YANG Doctor
 on January 31, 2021.

o I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model Draft
  
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm%2F=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e776460cdb3450db3af08d8a35d361e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637438968030589218%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=yqp8Tfc62T3Vy7jib1o0LdmLgGB5chb%2Fu6WpF9NUHaQ%3D=0>)
 - The draft will be submitted to the IESG for our AD's review on February 15, 
2021.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi I2NSF WG,
I2NSF WG chairs (Linda and Yoav) and members including Susan, Die

Re: [I2nsf] I2NSF Re-chartering Text

[Linda Dunbar]

Yoav,

Your proposed time works for me.

Linda

From: Yoav Nir 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 1:07 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Cc: Linda Dunbar ; i2nsf@ietf.org; Roman Danyliw 
; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA ; Younghan 
Kim ; 양현식 ; Susan Hares 
; JungSoo Park ; Yunchul Choi 
; skku-iotlab-members 
Subject: Re: I2NSF Re-chartering Text

Does Thursday, December 3rd at 14:00 UTC work for everyone?

It’s 16:00 for me, 15:00 for much of Europe, 9:00 AM EST, 6:00 AM PST, and 
unfortunately, 23:00 in Seoul.

I’ll wait 24 hours before scheduling the meeting in case there are objections.

Yoav



On 16 Nov 2020, at 3:44, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Yoav,
I agree that we can schedule our online interim meeting on the week of the 29th 
/ first week of December.

Could you schedule such an interim meeting?

I believe that we can get more people to be engaged in the new I2NSF work items
other than the authors of the current I2NSF WG and individual drafts.
With those people, I hope our I2NSF WG can have more energy. :)

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:59 AM Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, Paul

As Roman said in a separate email message, we can’t schedule a meeting during 
IETF week. It also requires two weeks notice, so it anyway can only be done on 
the week of the 29th / first week of December.

That’s not a bad thing: it will give people enough time to read the charter and 
form an opinion before coming to the meeting.

If and when we have this meeting, I think we need to get a good number (5 
maybe?) or people who are not authors and will commit to reviewing the proposed 
documents. I think it is very obvious that this working group has lost energy, 
and we wouldn’t want to take on more work unless there is a clear indication 
that there will be such energy going forward.

Yoav


On 15 Nov 2020, at 18:26, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Linda and Yoav,
Here is the text for I2NSF WG Re-chartering.
---
Charter for Working Group

Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) provides security vendors with 
a standard framework and interfaces for cloud-based security services. I2NSF 
enables the enforcement of a high-level security policy of a user's perspective 
in a target network (e.g., cloud network and edge network). This security 
policy enforcement in I2NSF is a data-driven approach using NETCONF/YANG or 
RESTCONF/YANG where a security policy is constructed into an XML file based on 
a YANG data model.

The I2NSF framework consists of four components such as I2NSF User, Security 
Controller, Network Security Function (NSF), and Developer's Management System 
(DMS). I2NSF User specifies a high-level security policy for a target network 
(e.g., cloud network). Security Controller maintains the capability of an NSF 
and takes a security policy from I2NSF User for the enforcement of the 
corresponding security service. An NSF performs a specific security service 
(e.g., firewall, web filter, deep packet inspection, and DDOS-attack mitigator) 
according to a security policy rule. DMS registers the capability of an NSF 
with Security Controller.

The I2NSF framework has four interfaces such as Consumer-Facing Interface, 
NSF-Facing Interface, Registration Interface, and Monitoring Interface. 
Consumer-Facing Interface is used to deliver a high-level security policy from 
I2NSF User to Security Controller. NSF-Facing Interface is used to deliver a 
low-level security policy from Security Controller to an NSF. Registration 
Interface is used to register the capability of an NSF with Security 
Controller. Monitoring Interface is used to collect monitoring data from an NSF.

The goal of I2NSF is to define a set of software interfaces and data models of 
such interfaces for configuring, maintaining, and monitoring NSFs in Network 
Functions Virtualization (NFV) environments. For security management automation 
in an autonomous security system, I2NSF needs to have a feedback control loop 
consisting of security policy configuration in an NSF, monitoring for an NSF, 
data analysis for NSF monitoring data, feedback delivery, and security policy 
augmentation/generation. For this security management automation, the I2NSF 
framework requires a new component to collect NSF monitoring data and analyze 
them, which is called I2NSF Analyzer. Also, the I2NSF framework needs a new 
interface to deliver a feedback message for security policy adjustment from 
I2NSF Analyzer to Security Controller.

I2NSF is vulnerable to an inside attack and a supply chain attack since it 
trusts in NSFs provided by DMS, assuming that NSFs work for their security 
services appropriately. Also, I2NSF trusts in I2NSF User and Security 
Controller. The registration of an NSF's capability, the enforcement of a 
security 

Re: [I2nsf] Request for Online Meeting for I2NSF WG Rechartering

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you very much for writing the 3 additional drafts for I2NSF. I already 
read through them.
Waiting review your drafted re-chartering text. Make sure to identify clearly 
the detailed work items.

Are you  requesting an informal session to discuss the text for re-chartering?
It would be good to give people some time to review.

Thank you.

Linda




From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:54 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: Roman Danyliw ; i2nsf@ietf.org; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA 
; Susan Hares ; Xialiang (Frank) 
; Qin Wu ; Younghan Kim 
; JungSoo Park ; Yunchul Choi 
; Patrick Lingga ; Hyunsik Yang 
; skku-iotlab-members 
; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Request for Online Meeting for I2NSF WG Rechartering

Hi Linda and Yoav,
I would like to suggest an online meeting for I2NSF WG Rechartering
during the IETF-109 week (from November 16 to November 20).

Diego Lopez and I expressed new work items for our I2NSF WG before.

I am preparing the text for the I2NSF WG Recharter and will share it with our 
I2NSF WG this week.

The new work items to be discussed  in this online meeting are as follows:
- An Extension of I2NSF Framework for Security Management Automation in 
Cloud-Based Security Services
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-00<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation-00=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8356dc1f47d2446ac6e608d885457382%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637405880633623921%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=Vq82JSp2OCdNqQpkqhQuSAzKJa6b380fldkFcuUcpag%3D=0>

- Remote Attestation Procedures for Network Security Functions (NSFs) through 
the I2NSF Security Controller
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pastor-i2nsf-nsf-remote-attestation-07<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-pastor-i2nsf-nsf-remote-attestation-07=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8356dc1f47d2446ac6e608d885457382%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637405880633623921%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=ycLWstWW9F6Hxfd3mgyh9nCuQ%2BsR3RKAhw0WKjTz%2FmM%3D=0>

- An I2NSF Interface in NFV Container Environment (i.e., Cloud Native 
Environment)
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-i2nsf-nfv-architecture-06<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-yang-i2nsf-nfv-architecture-06=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8356dc1f47d2446ac6e608d885457382%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637405880633633913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=TCmcbEt%2BDhjBg23LeQm5fEhLl0eRxo2PJtHsvJSh5hc%3D=0>

I will survey the preferred time slots for you and I2NSF active members
for the online meeting with Doodle through my student Patrick.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>, 
paulje...@skku.edu<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpslab.skku.edu%2Fpeople-jaehoon-jeong.php=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8356dc1f47d2446ac6e608d885457382%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637405880633633913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=LDNEgf%2F7qsr2y9UrxsTrmLfaeCcxLCFyE97bSNhXuv8%3D=0>


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

Re: [I2nsf] draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 is officially removed from I2NSF WG ( was RE: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information Model Draft and merge the relevant informat

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you very much for the update.

Linda

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
jaehoon.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Linda and Yoav,
> I need more time to merge the information model and data model for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model along with the reflection of the
> IESG's comments:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/
>
> I will try to do the merging and the reflection of the comments of the
> IESG by IETF-109 I-D due (11/02/2020).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:33 AM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
> jaehoon.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Linda,
>> I see.
>>
>> I will do the merging.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Paul
>>
>> 2020년 10월 10일 (토) 오전 10:20, Linda 님이 작성:
>>
>>> Yes
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2020, at 7:55 PM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <
>>> jaehoon.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Hi Linda,
>>> As I understand, I need to merge the relevant contents of the NSFs
>>> Capability Information Model Draft into the I2NSF NSF Capability Data Model
>>> Draft.
>>>
>>> Is it correct?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> 2020년 10월 9일 (금) 오후 11:58, Linda Dunbar 님이
>>> 작성:
>>>
>>>> I2NSF WG,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correction:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There has been NO object to the Author’s request for sunsetting the
>>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-5.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have marked the draft as “DEAD” in the WG status.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks to the authors for putting the effort in this draft for
>>>> kickstarting all the data models in I2NSF WG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linda & Yoav
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Linda Dunbar
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:36 PM
>>>> *To:* i2nsf@ietf.org
>>>> *Subject:* draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 is officially removed from
>>>> I2NSF WG ( was RE: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities
>>>> Information Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF
>>>> Capability Data model draft?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I2nsf WG,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There has been any objection to the Author’s request for sunsetting the
>>>>  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Authors of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model: please remove
>>>> the reference to the Capability Information Model and upload a new draft.
>>>> We can ask IESG to re-review it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linda & Yoav.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Linda Dunbar
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2020 11:00 AM
>>>> *To:* i2nsf@ietf.org
>>>> *Subject:* Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities
>>>> Information Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF
>>>> Capability Data model draft?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I2NSF WG,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Diego has expressed that the original I2NSF capability information
>>>> model was based on a policy expression calculus suitable for manipulating
>>>> high-level policy expressions.  The capability data model has been evolving
>>>> in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the
>>>> hackathons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The I2NSF Capability Information Model has fulfilled its purpose of
>>>> kickstarting and guiding the data model, and the authors believe that it is
>>>> better to let the capability information model to be withdrawn. For the
>>>> content in the information model still relevant to I2NSF Capability Data
>>>> Model, they should be merged into the Capability Data Model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

Re: [I2nsf] draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 is officially removed from I2NSF WG ( was RE: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information Model Draft and merge the relevant informat

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

Correction:

There has been NO object to the Author’s request for sunsetting the 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-5.

We have marked the draft as “DEAD” in the WG status.

Many thanks to the authors for putting the effort in this draft for 
kickstarting all the data models in I2NSF WG.

Linda & Yoav

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:36 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 is officially removed from I2NSF WG ( 
was RE: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information 
Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF Capability Data 
model draft?

I2nsf WG,

There has been any objection to the Author’s request for sunsetting the  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05.

Authors of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model: please remove the 
reference to the Capability Information Model and upload a new draft. We can 
ask IESG to re-review it.

Thank you very much.

Linda & Yoav.

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 11:00 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information 
Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF Capability Data 
model draft?

I2NSF WG,

As Diego has expressed that the original I2NSF capability information model was 
based on a policy expression calculus suitable for manipulating high-level 
policy expressions.  The capability data model has been evolving in a quite 
reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the hackathons.

The I2NSF Capability Information Model has fulfilled its purpose of 
kickstarting and guiding the data model, and the authors believe that it is 
better to let the capability information model to be withdrawn. For the content 
in the information model still relevant to I2NSF Capability Data Model, they 
should be merged into the Capability Data Model.

Is there any objection from the WG?  If we don’t hear any objection by Oct 5, 
we will change the status of the draft.

Cheers,

Linda & Yoav



From: Diego R. Lopez 
mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:35 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon 
Paul Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Xialiang (Frank) 
mailto:frank.xiali...@huawei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; John Strassner 
mailto:john.sc.strass...@huawei.com>>; Aldo 
Basile mailto:cataldo.bas...@polito.it>>; Roman 
Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi Linda,

I’d prefer the second option, as it seems more straightforward and natural to 
me, and in parallel would like you to consider the idea of an I2NSF extension 
allowing us to reuse the capability model for policy-control transformation, 
and to incorporate the attestation matters you know I was so much interested in.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdr2lopez%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C08a48858d7bd4d843a6e08d85f47b438%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637364108864949633=ROR4%2FyD1WqWDb1rCbJx3ERqTiMCQ92ibkyz26kYZdD8%3D=0>

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

On 22/09/2020, 18:01, "Linda Dunbar" 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Diego:

Thank you very much for the reflection of the Capabilities Information Model 
Draft. Agree with your statement that “the capability data model was evolving 
in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the 
hackathons”.

Looks like Eric Vyncke still wants the information model to be fixed to clear 
his “DISCUSS” ballot.
How about the following steps:

-  Ask Roman’s advice if we can simplify the Information Model mainly 
to reflect what has been in the Data Model.

-  Or, drop the Information model draft and remove the refence to the 
draft, but Roman has to convince Eric to agree not having the information model.

What do you think?

Linda


From: Diego R. Lopez 
mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:50 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>; Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Cc: Xialiang (Frank) 
mailto:frank.xiali...@huawei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; John Strassner 
mailto:john.sc.strass...@huawei.com>>; Aldo 
Basile mailto:cataldo.bas...@polito.it>>; Roman 
Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi

[I2nsf] draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 is officially removed from I2NSF WG ( was RE: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information Model Draft and merge the relevant information

[Linda Dunbar]

I2nsf WG,

There has been any objection to the Author’s request for sunsetting the  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05.

Authors of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model: please remove the 
reference to the Capability Information Model and upload a new draft. We can 
ask IESG to re-review it.

Thank you very much.

Linda & Yoav.

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 11:00 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information 
Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF Capability Data 
model draft?

I2NSF WG,

As Diego has expressed that the original I2NSF capability information model was 
based on a policy expression calculus suitable for manipulating high-level 
policy expressions.  The capability data model has been evolving in a quite 
reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the hackathons.

The I2NSF Capability Information Model has fulfilled its purpose of 
kickstarting and guiding the data model, and the authors believe that it is 
better to let the capability information model to be withdrawn. For the content 
in the information model still relevant to I2NSF Capability Data Model, they 
should be merged into the Capability Data Model.

Is there any objection from the WG?  If we don’t hear any objection by Oct 5, 
we will change the status of the draft.

Cheers,

Linda & Yoav



From: Diego R. Lopez 
mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:35 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Mr. Jaehoon 
Paul Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Xialiang (Frank) 
mailto:frank.xiali...@huawei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; John Strassner 
mailto:john.sc.strass...@huawei.com>>; Aldo 
Basile mailto:cataldo.bas...@polito.it>>; Roman 
Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi Linda,

I’d prefer the second option, as it seems more straightforward and natural to 
me, and in parallel would like you to consider the idea of an I2NSF extension 
allowing us to reuse the capability model for policy-control transformation, 
and to incorporate the attestation matters you know I was so much interested in.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdr2lopez%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C08a48858d7bd4d843a6e08d85f47b438%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637364108864949633=ROR4%2FyD1WqWDb1rCbJx3ERqTiMCQ92ibkyz26kYZdD8%3D=0>

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

On 22/09/2020, 18:01, "Linda Dunbar" 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Diego:

Thank you very much for the reflection of the Capabilities Information Model 
Draft. Agree with your statement that “the capability data model was evolving 
in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the 
hackathons”.

Looks like Eric Vyncke still wants the information model to be fixed to clear 
his “DISCUSS” ballot.
How about the following steps:

-  Ask Roman’s advice if we can simplify the Information Model mainly 
to reflect what has been in the Data Model.

-  Or, drop the Information model draft and remove the refence to the 
draft, but Roman has to convince Eric to agree not having the information model.

What do you think?

Linda


From: Diego R. Lopez 
mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:50 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>; Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Cc: Xialiang (Frank) 
mailto:frank.xiali...@huawei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; John Strassner 
mailto:john.sc.strass...@huawei.com>>; Aldo 
Basile mailto:cataldo.bas...@polito.it>>; Roman 
Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi Paul,

Before you go for it, let me share with you some reflections on the state of 
the draft, in the spirit of what I replied to Eric Vyncke.

I must confess there has been a combination of events that made me think the 
best solution was to leave this draft to fade away. First, I was not (have not 
been yet) able to find a solution to most of Roman’s comments without totally 
rewriting most, if not all, of the document.  Second, the fact that the 
capability data model was evolving in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, 
including running code at the hackathons, following the spirit of the initial 
work in the information model, but not attempting to align wit

[I2nsf] Is there any objection of sunset the I2NSF Capabilities Information Model Draft and merge the relevant information to the I2NSF Capability Data model draft?

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

As Diego has expressed that the original I2NSF capability information model was 
based on a policy expression calculus suitable for manipulating high-level 
policy expressions.  The capability data model has been evolving in a quite 
reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the hackathons.

The I2NSF Capability Information Model has fulfilled its purpose of 
kickstarting and guiding the data model, and the authors believe that it is 
better to let the capability information model to be withdrawn. For the content 
in the information model still relevant to I2NSF Capability Data Model, they 
should be merged into the Capability Data Model.

Is there any objection from the WG?  If we don’t hear any objection by Oct 5, 
we will change the status of the draft.

Cheers,

Linda & Yoav



From: Diego R. Lopez 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:35 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Cc: Xialiang (Frank) ; Yoav Nir 
; John Strassner ; Aldo 
Basile ; Roman Danyliw 
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi Linda,

I’d prefer the second option, as it seems more straightforward and natural to 
me, and in parallel would like you to consider the idea of an I2NSF extension 
allowing us to reuse the capability model for policy-control transformation, 
and to incorporate the attestation matters you know I was so much interested in.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdr2lopez%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C08a48858d7bd4d843a6e08d85f47b438%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637364108864949633=ROR4%2FyD1WqWDb1rCbJx3ERqTiMCQ92ibkyz26kYZdD8%3D=0>

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

On 22/09/2020, 18:01, "Linda Dunbar" 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Diego:

Thank you very much for the reflection of the Capabilities Information Model 
Draft. Agree with your statement that “the capability data model was evolving 
in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, including running code at the 
hackathons”.

Looks like Eric Vyncke still wants the information model to be fixed to clear 
his “DISCUSS” ballot.
How about the following steps:

-  Ask Roman’s advice if we can simplify the Information Model mainly 
to reflect what has been in the Data Model.

-  Or, drop the Information model draft and remove the refence to the 
draft, but Roman has to convince Eric to agree not having the information model.

What do you think?

Linda


From: Diego R. Lopez 
mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:50 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>; Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Cc: Xialiang (Frank) 
mailto:frank.xiali...@huawei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; John Strassner 
mailto:john.sc.strass...@huawei.com>>; Aldo 
Basile mailto:cataldo.bas...@polito.it>>; Roman 
Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>>
Subject: Re: Offer for Revision Help for I2NSF NSFs Capabilities Information 
Model Draft

Hi Paul,

Before you go for it, let me share with you some reflections on the state of 
the draft, in the spirit of what I replied to Eric Vyncke.

I must confess there has been a combination of events that made me think the 
best solution was to leave this draft to fade away. First, I was not (have not 
been yet) able to find a solution to most of Roman’s comments without totally 
rewriting most, if not all, of the document.  Second, the fact that the 
capability data model was evolving in a quite reasonable and pragmatic way, 
including running code at the hackathons, following the spirit of the initial 
work in the information model, but not attempting to align with its most recent 
evolution. If I have not shared this position before is because I have been 
looking for a way to make the idea of bridging capability declarations and 
security policy statements at the I2NSF controller viable, and I was hoping to 
find such a way by reusing part of the capability info model draft.

As I told Eric, I believe the current capability model has a powerful (though 
probably not yet complete) calculus for policy description and validation, but 
not directly related to the management mechanisms addressed in the capability 
data model and the other data models produced in I2NSF. I believe there is an 
opportunity for accomplishing policy-capability bridging, using as foundation 
the current capability model, though it seems to me that this task would 
require some time to consolidate and therefore imply an extension of the I2NSF 
lifetime. I would like

Re: [I2nsf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Linda Dunbar]

Ben,

Thank you very much for the detailed comments.

As a co-chair, I just want to address your comments on "“not see any discussion 
of privacy considerations”.  The draft authors will address your detailed 
comments & suggestions on the document.

There are suite of Data Models from I2NSF WG. All of them are branch out from 
the I2NSF Framework RFC8329.  The Security and privacy description from RFC 
8329 are applicable to all of them. RFC8329 states that
  The mechanisms adopted within the
  solution space must include proper secure communication channels that
  are carefully specified for carrying the controlling and monitoring
  information between the NSFs and their management entity or entities.

The Section 4 of RFC 8329 specifies the Threats Associated with Externally 
Provided NSFs.

Therefore, the WG doesn’t think it is necessary to repeat in every Data Model 
draft of the Security and Privacy described in the I2NSF framework RFC8329.

Best Regards,

Linda Dunbar


-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:12 AM
To: The IESG 
Cc: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-mo...@ietf.org; i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org; 
i2nsf@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar ; dunbar...@gmail.com
Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: 
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-12: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email 
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory 
paragraph, however.)


Please refer to 
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.htmldata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C7be707e9f5094fca13b208d85f7f3f28%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637364347438090690sdata=OTiRrNUfyiF7dDqYT1AESS%2BGTVzK5llDxbjVSAuyCe4%3Dreserved=0
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C7be707e9f5094fca13b208d85f7f3f28%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637364347438090690sdata=KHOzeKOWEBpJot8ZMMvWEh8t45eXvwoBKKPFpq29xVU%3Dreserved=0



--
DISCUSS:
--

There are many elements of the YANG module whose semantics seem underspecified 
to me.  I noted quite a few in the COMMENT section, and I hope that those 
aspects of my comments are clear (as it would be substantial effort to 
partition the comments and move the questions of unclear semantics into the 
discuss section), but I am happy to assist in the classification if needed.

I think that the data nodes of this module as written are probably not 
reflecting the intent -- it seems that the only elements of the 'nsf'
list are the string nsf-name; there is no "uses nsf-capabilities" stanza to 
bring in the grouping that contains all the interesting parts.
Specifically, I do not see how the tree diagram reflects the current module.

I'm surprised to not see any discussion of privacy considerations -- some of 
the features that we define capability indicators for are highly sensitive 
and/or privileged operations (e.g., listening to VoIP/VoLTE audio to identify 
individuals, web filtering) that inherently require access to individuals' 
private data.  Not only should we note that private information is made 
accessible in this manner, but we should also reiterate that the nodes/entities 
given access to this data need to be tightly secured and monitored, to prevent 
leakage or other unauthorized disclosure of private data.

I also think we need to mention that authentication and proper authorization 
will be needed to register as an NSF providing these capabilities.

The examples do not seem to conform to the current module structure (e.g., 
exact-fourth-layer-port-num and range-fourth-layer-port-num).

I worry a little bit that even the structure of the tree risks "imposing 
functional requirements or constraints" upon NSF developers (in the words of 
the framework).  How would, for example, SCTP capabilities be indicated, let 
alone QUIC?  (With an augmentation, clearly, but is that undue burden?)  While 
the classification into ingress/egress/log is natural, it also may be found 
limiting; consider, for example, a setup involving port mirroring -- is that an 
ingress action or egress?  If traffic is dropped as part of a different ingress 
filtering capability, does it still get sent to the port mirror?


-

[I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-12

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-12 
to address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-12
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/

This poll runs until Oct 7, 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-09

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-09 to 
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/

This poll runs until Oct 7, 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-10

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-10 as None on behalf of the I2NSF 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/


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

Re: [I2nsf] Request for YANG Doctor Review on I2NSF NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model Draft

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

YANG Doctor Review Request has been sent.  We can do WGLC afterwards.

Thanks, Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:25 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku-iotlab-members ; 
Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Subject: Request for YANG Doctor Review on I2NSF NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model 
Draft

Hi Linda and Yoav,
As you know, the I2NSF NSF monitoring draft is the last YANG data model in our 
I2NSF under our current I2NSF charter.

Could you ask a YANG doctor to review this draft before the WG last call?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620480889=DOw1YsCdvqBEHB7Qn0VQUGxwzafzIWLxjDEo6yFsI%2B8%3D=0>

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

-- Forwarded message -
From: mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM
Subject: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04.txt
To: mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>>
Cc: mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>>



A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Interface to Network Security Functions WG of 
the IETF.

Title   : I2NSF NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model
Authors : Jaehoon Paul Jeong
  Patrick Lingga
  Susan Hares
  Liang Xia (Frank)
  Henk Birkholz
Filename: draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04.txt
Pages   : 80
Date: 2020-09-07

Abstract:
   This document proposes an information model and the corresponding
   YANG data model for monitoring Network Security Functions (NSFs) in
   the Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) framework.  If
   the monitoring of NSFs is performed in a comprehensive way, it is
   possible to detect the indication of malicious activity, anomalous
   behavior, the potential sign of denial of service attacks, or system
   overload in a timely manner.  This monitoring functionality is based
   on the monitoring information that is generated by NSFs.  Thus, this
   document describes not only an information model for monitoring NSFs
   along with a YANG data diagram, but also the corresponding YANG data
   model for monitoring NSFs.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620480889=APvA%2BINsGHfwV9MXSxnhYnaVZM%2BR1qUkFXmJZPo0Jgo%3D=0>

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620490888=KqSUiv04sysghw42Qz%2BhAiSDS5Z7LKL4mKwfYuU6hho%3D=0>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620490888=p6qktgxd2WbUUWfQxi87X6MIrlrIpunPqHU%2BrQpWMQc%3D=0>

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620500881=Gvdc6if7Yl6Ubg6xD8h1WdpVRcV6amumf%2F%2B470ANrIo%3D=0>


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
tools.ietf.org<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdbc367f54ec5434f784b08d853b7ab30%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637351395620510873=8ayWh4mCuD2%2FoTxCmN0oLDi6nkjW40n5Yu8ybyPBnDw%3D=0>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlo

Re: [I2nsf] Revision Plan for I2NSF Capability Data Model and Consumer-Facing Interface Drafts

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

After your adding of the IANA section, please send email to  
i...@iana.org<mailto:i...@iana.org> asking them to change the Status of

IANA review stateVersion Changed - 
Review Needed

Linda
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 10:22 AM
To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong ; Yoav Nir 

Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku-iotlab-members 
Subject: RE: Revision Plan for I2NSF Capability Data Model and Consumer-Facing 
Interface Drafts

Paul,

Thank you very much for your team’s continuous work to progress the I2NSF.


With regard to the I2NSF Applicability draft, IANA has a review issue:

IANA has issues with the text of the IANA Considerations section of the 
document.

I don’t think you need any action by IANA.
Can you please ask IANA if it is due to your draft doesn’t have the section on 
IANA Considerations?
All drafts are required to have a section on IANA consideration, like below:

IANA Considerations
None

Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>; skku-iotlab-members 
mailto:skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Revision Plan for I2NSF Capability Data Model and Consumer-Facing 
Interface Drafts

Hi Linda and Yoav,

My SKKU team are working for the revision of I2NSF Capability Data Model and 
Consumer-Facing Interface Drafts.

For the I2NSF Capability Data Model draft, I am addressing Roman Danyliw's 
comments.

For the Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model draft, my student (Patrick) and I
have revised it according to Jan Lindblad's comments (YANG Doctor).
We are doublechecking our revision before asking Jan to review our revision.

We will post both the drafts next Monday before the I-D cut-off time.

For the I2NSF Applicability draft, the editing takes a long time before the 
publication as an RFC.

Could you ask an RFC editor to finish the editing of the I2NSF Applicability 
draft soon?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

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

Re: [I2nsf] Revision Plan for I2NSF Capability Data Model and Consumer-Facing Interface Drafts

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Thank you very much for your team’s continuous work to progress the I2NSF.


With regard to the I2NSF Applicability draft, IANA has a review issue:

IANA has issues with the text of the IANA Considerations section of the 
document.

I don’t think you need any action by IANA.
Can you please ask IANA if it is due to your draft doesn’t have the section on 
IANA Considerations?
All drafts are required to have a section on IANA consideration, like below:

IANA Considerations
None

Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku-iotlab-members ; 
Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Subject: Revision Plan for I2NSF Capability Data Model and Consumer-Facing 
Interface Drafts

Hi Linda and Yoav,

My SKKU team are working for the revision of I2NSF Capability Data Model and 
Consumer-Facing Interface Drafts.

For the I2NSF Capability Data Model draft, I am addressing Roman Danyliw's 
comments.

For the Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model draft, my student (Patrick) and I
have revised it according to Jan Lindblad's comments (YANG Doctor).
We are doublechecking our revision before asking Jan to review our revision.

We will post both the drafts next Monday before the I-D cut-off time.

For the I2NSF Applicability draft, the editing takes a long time before the 
publication as an RFC.

Could you ask an RFC editor to finish the editing of the I2NSF Applicability 
draft soon?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

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

[I2nsf] What is the next step for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05?

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

The status for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05 is "Submitted to IESG 
for Publication".

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

what is the next step? The IESG status is "Publication Requested".

Has IESG start to evaluate the draft? Is there anything WG needs to do to move 
it forward?

Thank you very much.

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

Re: [I2nsf] Please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this draft to move forward

[Linda Dunbar]

Ping the authors of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability:

Could you please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this 
draft to move forward?

Thank you very much

Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 12:18 PM
To: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capabil...@ietf.org; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this 
draft to move forward

Authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability,

Could you please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this 
draft to move forward?

Thank you very much

Linda

--
[I2nsf] AD Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05
Roman Danyliw mailto:r...@cert.org>> Sat, 07 September 2019 
03:25 UTCShow 
header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/3zaF6lcQkHZdsajS-cRG3qEk9Zc>
Hi!

The following is my AD review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05:

== [ Process feedback
(1) The I2NSF charter states "The working group will decide later whether the 
information model needs to be published as an RFC".  The shepherd write-up does 
not capture WG deliberation on choosing to publish this document.  Can this 
please be added.

(2) What is the rational for this draft being standards track?  For a standards 
track information model, I would expected normative references to content 
needed by the data models.  However, the data models that would be implement 
this IM only reference it as informational.

==[ High level feedback
(More specific pointers to all of these are in the detailed feedback)

** The document discusses a lot different models -- CapIM, capability 
information model, ECA policy model, capability model, meta-model, external 
information model.  It would be helpful to define upfront the relationship 
between these components.

** The CapIM also appears to have multiple use cases.  The text seems to 
fluidly move between the ideas of a Policy Rule and the capability being 
advertised by the NSF.  Being clear up front and organizing the text around 
these uses would be helpful.

** At times it wasn't clear if what was being described is an element of the 
CapIM or a properties of the system that would be consuming it.

** The mechanics of integrating external models wasn't clear to me

** Finally, explaining these models relative to the I2NSF 
architecture/terminology would be very helpful - i.e., the I2NSF reference 
architecture in Figure 1 of RFC8329, and the I2NSF Policy Rule.

==[ Detailed feedback
(3)  Abstract.  Whatever markup generated this text oddly placed the Abstract 
after the Copyright notice and status of this memo statement.  The abstract 
should be first.  Can you please rearrange the text.

(4) Please resolve these additional IDnits:

  ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.
 (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an
unexpected indentation:
 '  1. Introduction' )

  ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.
 (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an
unexpected indentation:
 '  5. Security Considerations' )

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
 when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
 being 13 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
 recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
 keywords.

(5) Section 1.  It struck me as unusual that Section 1 and early parts of 2, 
don't explain this information model (IM) in terms of the I2NSF architecture.  
Is there a reason for that?  IMO, it would make the text a lot clearer to state 
that this IM is used for particular I2NSF interfaces and avoid the defining 
what NSFs need. Without it, the text isn't clear on the link between "Security 
Capabilities" and the I2NSF architecture.

(6) Section 1.  Per the opening paragraph of "The rapid development of 
virtualized systems  Examples include ...":
-- Sentence #2 doesn't seem to support sentence #1.  What is the link between 
IoT devices and virtualization?
-- what are residential access users?

(7) Section 1.  Expand NSF on first use.

(8) Section 1.  Editorial.  s/over the given network traffic/on the network 
traffic/

(9) Section 1.  Editorial.
s/Security Capabilities describe the functions that Network Security Functions 
(NSFs) are available to provide for security policy enforcement purposes./
Security Capabilities describe the functionality that Network Security 
Functions (NSFs) are able to provide for security policy enforcement purposes./

(10) Section 1.  Per "Security Capabilities are independent of the actual 
security control mechanisms that will implement them"

[I2nsf] FW: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

[Linda Dunbar]

I2NSF WG,

Please input your voice to the IETF survey on future Online meetings.

Linda Dunbar


Begin forwarded message:

From: IETF Executive Director 
mailto:exec-direc...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings
Date: May 4, 2020 at 3:03:35 AM EDT
To: "IETF Announcement List" 
mailto:ietf-annou...@ietf.org>>
Reply-To: ietf108plann...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf108plann...@ietf.org>

This is a reminder that we need the IETF community to help us plan for the 
possibility that one or more upcoming IETF meetings in 2020 and possibly 2021 
may not be able to go ahead in person.  You can help us with this by filling 
out the following survey:


https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5328FFJ<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2F5328FFJ=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cea821a1496c2424c050308d7f0ea3f9a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637242761205152068=LK9HLtrm8QPKzJQ7Wv6twcvZ4GLTlIIo6UJDVOS3x6Q%3D=0>

So far we have 114 responses and we would ideally like 500 or more.

The survey contains the following pages and will take 15-20 minutes to complete:

1. Welcome
2. Online IETF 107 and the subsequent virtual interims
3. Replacing a cancelled in-person meeting
4. Online meeting format and timezone
5. Replicating humming
6. Replicating the hallway environment
7. Fees
8. Thanks and anything else

We run the survey in anonymous mode which means that we only see data that you 
explicitly provide.

Thank you in advance for your help.

--
Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
Jay Daley, IETF Executive Director
Colin Perkins, IRTF Chair

___
IETF-Announce mailing list
ietf-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-annou...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

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

[I2nsf] WGLC is closed. (was RE: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08

[Linda Dunbar]

Many thanks to the authors of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08, 
IPR disclosure, and the I2NSF WG diligent work. .

WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08 is officially closed.

Thank you for your hard work and patience.
Linda & Yoav.


From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 4:23 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: Yoav Nir 
Subject: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08


Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm to 
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C9bcce04caea74f6b257508d778356660%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637110043059543710=IPm4dDBvEfO8Wf6HpSOQCrB%2Fta1zB7E0TX8XMvWmTuA%3D=0>

This poll runs until Jan 6, 2020 (considering many people taking Christmas to 
New Year off).

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] some minor IDNITs of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05

[Linda Dunbar]

Authors of  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05

Thank you very much for making the changes to address YANG Doctor review. There 
are some minor editorial NITS from the document:


  *   Page 3 second paragraph: there is duplicated "."



  *   Page 5 first paragraph under Figure 1: is "Using I2NSF user" un-necessary?



[cid:image003.png@01D5B1D1.3E690990]



  *   Reference to "draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-01" is older 
version. The current one is 02. Maybe don't say the version number?

Same comment goes to other references to specific drafts.





Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] Please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this draft to move forward

[Linda Dunbar]

Authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability,

Could you please address the comments from AD and upload a revision for this 
draft to move forward?

Thank you very much

Linda

--
[I2nsf] AD Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05
Roman Danyliw  Sat, 07 September 2019 03:25 UTCShow 
header
Hi!

The following is my AD review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05:

== [ Process feedback
(1) The I2NSF charter states "The working group will decide later whether the 
information model needs to be published as an RFC".  The shepherd write-up does 
not capture WG deliberation on choosing to publish this document.  Can this 
please be added.

(2) What is the rational for this draft being standards track?  For a standards 
track information model, I would expected normative references to content 
needed by the data models.  However, the data models that would be implement 
this IM only reference it as informational.

==[ High level feedback
(More specific pointers to all of these are in the detailed feedback)

** The document discusses a lot different models -- CapIM, capability 
information model, ECA policy model, capability model, meta-model, external 
information model.  It would be helpful to define upfront the relationship 
between these components.

** The CapIM also appears to have multiple use cases.  The text seems to 
fluidly move between the ideas of a Policy Rule and the capability being 
advertised by the NSF.  Being clear up front and organizing the text around 
these uses would be helpful.

** At times it wasn't clear if what was being described is an element of the 
CapIM or a properties of the system that would be consuming it.

** The mechanics of integrating external models wasn't clear to me

** Finally, explaining these models relative to the I2NSF 
architecture/terminology would be very helpful - i.e., the I2NSF reference 
architecture in Figure 1 of RFC8329, and the I2NSF Policy Rule.

==[ Detailed feedback
(3)  Abstract.  Whatever markup generated this text oddly placed the Abstract 
after the Copyright notice and status of this memo statement.  The abstract 
should be first.  Can you please rearrange the text.

(4) Please resolve these additional IDnits:

  ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.
 (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an
unexpected indentation:
 '  1. Introduction' )

  ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.
 (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an
unexpected indentation:
 '  5. Security Considerations' )

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
 when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
 being 13 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
 recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
 keywords.

(5) Section 1.  It struck me as unusual that Section 1 and early parts of 2, 
don't explain this information model (IM) in terms of the I2NSF architecture.  
Is there a reason for that?  IMO, it would make the text a lot clearer to state 
that this IM is used for particular I2NSF interfaces and avoid the defining 
what NSFs need. Without it, the text isn't clear on the link between "Security 
Capabilities" and the I2NSF architecture.

(6) Section 1.  Per the opening paragraph of "The rapid development of 
virtualized systems  Examples include ...":
-- Sentence #2 doesn't seem to support sentence #1.  What is the link between 
IoT devices and virtualization?
-- what are residential access users?

(7) Section 1.  Expand NSF on first use.

(8) Section 1.  Editorial.  s/over the given network traffic/on the network 
traffic/

(9) Section 1.  Editorial.
s/Security Capabilities describe the functions that Network Security Functions 
(NSFs) are available to provide for security policy enforcement purposes./
Security Capabilities describe the functionality that Network Security 
Functions (NSFs) are able to provide for security policy enforcement purposes./

(10) Section 1.  Per "Security Capabilities are independent of the actual 
security control mechanisms that will implement them":
-- this seems redundant to the content of the next paragraph.
-- in this context is a security control mechanism an NSF? Or something new?

(11) Section 1.  Per "Every NSF SHOULD be described with the set of 
capabilities it offers", it seems odd for an IM document to place this required 
as it doesn't actually specify the solution (as this would be a data model)

(12) Section 1.  Expand "ECA model" on first use.

(13) Section 3.  The first paragraph, "A Capability 

[I2nsf] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05

[Linda Dunbar via Datatracker]

Linda Dunbar has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05 as None on behalf of the I2NSF 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

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

[I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08

[Linda Dunbar]

Hello Working Group,

Many thanks to the authors of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm to 
address all the comments from YANG Doctor review.

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/

This poll runs until Jan 6, 2020 (considering many people taking Christmas to 
New Year off).

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model is now closed!

[Linda Dunbar]

Many thanks to the authors of th edraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model and 
the I2NSF WG for making the needed changes to address the comments from YANG 
Doctors.
With YANG Doctors approved the document, we now are announcing WGLC for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model is closed.

We will write the Shepperd writeup and submit to IESG for review.

Thank you for your hard work and patience.
Linda & Yoav.

From: I2nsf  On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 4:07 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model

Hello Working Group,

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on  
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C315ebc11269248c7be2e08d6e9f9e3c2%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636953656813979050=AuU7pLyFYCCM7dma5ocPgjDcjS7NV%2B0KjyiSXQ1i2F8%3D=0>
  .
This poll runs until June 26, 2019.
   
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C315ebc11269248c7be2e08d6e9f9e3c2%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636953656813989041=YPtGZtcQyUSe0Z%2BwLkjxSPvmZ7JoAuzy%2BGDBl3SNhTA%3D=0>

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.


Thank you.
Linda & Yoav

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

Re: [I2nsf] Request for WG Last Call on I2NSF YANG Data Model Drafts

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Have you addressed the comments from the YANG Doctor ?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04-yangdoctors-lc-moberg-2019-07-15/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-04-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-06-28/

If yes, please ask the reviewer to change the status.

For draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm, can you work with the YANG DR 
reviewer Acee Lindem to resolve his comments for NOT READY status?


In preparing for WGLC, I have requested YANG DR review for the following drafts:
Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108851221=NFUNE0gfU9Yy2Hi7w0FnvgFxObZ9nRcFTuuSXwNAGNM%3D=0>

Linda

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 3:35 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: Roman Danyliw ; i2nsf@ietf.org; 
skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Request for WG Last Call on I2NSF YANG Data Model Drafts

Hi Linda and Yoav,
I have submitted the revised drafts of Consumer-Facing Interface and NSF-Facing 
Interface Data Models
according to the YANG doctors' comments.

For NSF Capability and Registration Interface Data Models, I submitted the 
revised drafts last July, during the IETF-105 meeting.

Could you start the WG Last Call for these four drafts?

- I2NSF Capability Data Model
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108841225=p03ssH%2Bay1imY0wsDFPpxtHntjjxD%2BgLoueemFTyZMY%3D=0>

- Consumer-Facing Interface Data Model
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-07=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108851221=NFUNE0gfU9Yy2Hi7w0FnvgFxObZ9nRcFTuuSXwNAGNM%3D=0>

- NSF-Facing Interface Data Models
  
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-08=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108851221=L8Rd1xVuW64pIC1qOnQFWEewk1ovfMgpV84hP5nzcVc%3D=0>

-  Registration Interface Data Model
   
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-05=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108861214=aimNHEsgvl7s67iGx3O7kfBCdHKZB849SaKPoIvWqNU%3D=0>

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul
--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>, 
paulje...@skku.edu<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpslab.skku.edu%2Fpeople-jaehoon-jeong.php=02%7C01%7Cldunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8d6a15a92a5c46669aaa08d761d37156%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637085433108861214=afGU5U4CGwb1SZWDtfGtBZ9662ZAPBNQ%2FqTwYJfPvSs%3D=0>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] i2nsf - Not having a session at IETF 106

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

We think that the existing WG drafts are mature, doesn’t need to occupy the 
precious meeting slots in IETF106. We can have side discussion during IETF106 
if there are controversial issues that need people to discuss. Mailing list is 
another venue to discuss. We need to complete all the remaining WG drafts and 
move to IESG.

Thank you for all the contributions to I2NSF WG.

Linda
From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2019 12:22 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: Roman Danyliw ; i2nsf@ietf.org; 
skku-iotlab-memb...@googlegroups.com; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 

Subject: Re: [I2nsf] i2nsf - Not having a session at IETF 106

Hi Linda and Yoav,
Is this a temporary WG meeting skip?

Or are you closing the I2NSF WG soon?

I believe  that the I2NSF WG can recharter our missions for the deployment of 
the I2NSF work into the industry such as
(i) Data Model for NSF Database Configuration at Security Control for Security 
Policy Translation,
(ii) Data Model for the Interaction between I2NSF Security Controller and SFC 
Classifier for Security Traffic Steering,
(iii) Data Model for the Interaction between I2NSF Security Controller and SDN 
Controller (i.e., Switch Controller) for
Efficient Security Services through the Cooperation between SDN Switches and 
NSFs,
(iv) Data Model for the Interaction between I2NSF Developer's Management System 
and NSF MANO
for Efficient NSF Lifecycle and Load-balancing Management, and
(v) Intent-Based Security Services using I2NSF Framework and Security Policy 
Translator.

Those will be the next steps as the 2nd phase of the I2NSF WG for the 
realization of our work.
I hope we can discuss them at IETF-107 I2NSF WG session.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:08 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Linda and Yoav,
my SKKU team are still working on the data model drafts of Consumer-Facing 
Interface and NSF-Facing Interface because the comments from YANG doctors 
require many changes.
I will be able to submit these two drafts by the end of this October.
I will submit other WG and individual drafts by the IETF-106 I-D submission due.

My team are working on the IETF-106 I2NSF Hackathon for the NSF Monitoring Data 
Model.

I will share the progress of those things with the slides by the I2NSF mailing 
list.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

2019년 10월 5일 (토) 오전 7:20, IETF Meeting Session Request Tool 
mailto:session-requ...@ietf.org>>님이 작성:


Linda Dunbar, a chair of the i2nsf working group, indicated that the i2nsf 
working group does not plan to hold a session at IETF 106.

This message was generated and sent by the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool.


___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi2nsf=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C24e08864f8f746ab401808d749540a5e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637058497623637035=%2FPu1vSbeXPJuNHJ1%2FO%2BZMDsiqrd4dmoZr5vbpclGay0%3D=0>


--
===
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: jaehoon.p...@gmail.com<mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>, 
paulje...@skku.edu<mailto:paulje...@skku.edu>
Personal Homepage: 
http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpslab.skku.edu%2Fpeople-jaehoon-jeong.php=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C24e08864f8f746ab401808d749540a5e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637058497623637035=hbN8bfuWBI9jpkmEAB9AKrq6QVlRj9k%2F2Q6vnx4f1pY%3D=0>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] I2NSF WG session minutes in IETF105 has been posted

[Linda Dunbar]

Many thanks to Ted Lemmon taking the detailed notes. Here are the meeting 
minutes of I2NSF WG session in IETF 105:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-i2nsf-00

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

[I2nsf] FW: Writing YANG Model Security Considerations

[Linda Dunbar]

Please reference to the security consideration for YANG models per Ops 
Guidance. 

Linda

-Original Message-
From: Roman Danyliw  
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 8:27 AM
To: Linda Dunbar 
Cc: Yoav Nir ; Roman Danyliw 
Subject: Writing YANG Model Security Considerations

Hi Linda!

We talked about the need to write consistent security consideration in YANG 
models per Ops guidance.  This is the reference/template:

https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fops%2Fwiki%2Fyang-security-guidelinesdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4ea43a85074547e5418d08d70f71619a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636994851956133121sdata=Lf48WzFKPoXZvUKRua5od1In1JI5x%2FiTdE%2F1%2BnNiLZE%3Dreserved=0

Roman

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

[I2nsf] Please send your presentation slides for I2NSF WG session

[Linda Dunbar]

Need your presentation slides ASAP!

Thank you

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

[I2nsf] I2NSF WG session agenda for IETF 105

[Linda Dunbar]

Here is the preliminary agenda for I2NSF WG session in IETF105. Please let us 
know if there is any error, or if we missed something.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-i2nsf-00

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

Re: [I2nsf] FW: IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda: I2NSF WG session will be on Thurs 10am

[Linda Dunbar]

Paul,

Got your requests.
For your presentations, can you elaborate main points from the YANG doctors 
review, especially controversial areas which you disagree?

Thank you.

Linda & Yoav

From: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 8:33 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yoav Nir 
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; skku_secu-brain_...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] FW: IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda: I2NSF WG session will be 
on Thurs 10am

Hi Linda and Yoav,
I would like to report the updated data model drafts based on the YANG doctors' 
reviews.
The authors are working on the revision of the drafts with those reviews and 
will submit
the revised drafts around July 21, 2019, before the IETF-105 I2NSF Session.
I have the timeslot request for the following updated presentations:

- I2NSF Hackathon Project: 5 min (Jaehoon Paul Jeong)
  
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/105hackathon<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fietf%2Fmeeting%2Fwiki%2F105hackathon=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087310670=9y43KamyWt%2BzZO10%2BO3XNP8RsBJSVyjRd%2B6ibRZTDn4%3D=0>

- I2NSF YANG Data Model Drafts: 20 min (Jaehoon Paul Jeong)
  I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087310670=OymyfgV%2BunrlFRVP6a9Q33bb3WrRLm5QV%2B8iofgqROQ%3D=0>

  I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087320664=9P88iTf3RHhckwLbNXDJUEbGbPCImE6q3rKniyp7QUg%3D=0>

  I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087320664=4TiCbSoGhHrIOiJeE5q1JqPA%2F5QG3zWbaWaERajamGA%3D=0>

  I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087330658=gew5RYHM65l5wNkJJB%2FEf9bubWj1lRNzJfh9kc%2B5THo%3D=0>

  I2NSF Monitoring YANG Data Model
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087330658=OZ3kxopDK6RPC6%2FGz54mVtaCRNlTxiItJ3hBfEdjDEM%3D=0>

- Security Policy Translation Draft: 5 min (Jaehoon Paul Jeong)
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation%2F=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087330658=%2FE1EoIlPbB5hTjL6y2CEqeXjVi2CmEtwK2l3MYcFi2U%3D=0>

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
mailto:jaehoon.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Linda and Yoav,
I have three presentations as follows:

- I2NSF Hackathon Project: 5 min (Jaehoon Paul Jeong)
  
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/105hackathon<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fietf%2Fmeeting%2Fwiki%2F105hackathon=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4558cb8dd1994eca852c08d6fef1dd26%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976712087340653=1IootkGPWgRoAFlWg37mPhlvPjTjdyjY61vrSN9%2B9%2BQ%3D=0>

- I2NSF Monitoring Data Model Draft: 10 min (Chaehong Chung)
  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-mo

[I2nsf] Anyone needs remote presentation for I2NSF WG session in IETF 105? FW: Remote presentations at IETF105 - cutoff date July 20

[Linda Dunbar]

If you do, please let us know as soon as possible. 

Linda & Yoav

-Original Message-
From: WGChairs  On Behalf Of Meetecho IETF support
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 5:16 AM
To: wgcha...@ietf.org
Subject: Remote presentations at IETF105 - cutoff date July 20

Dear chairs,

as usual, please book your remote *presentation* slots at IETF105 by filling 
out the following form:

 
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fietf105.conf.meetecho.com%2Findex.php%2FRemote_presentationsdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ccf5e8855ca2345d31db708d6fed654ab%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976593831661070sdata=as4qAK0L053R3lBUpZ%2Bx0ZHRVbvVxntWhHGmFp4Op60%3Dreserved=0

*The cutoff date is July 20, 2019.*

You can also check scheduled remote presentations here:

 
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fietf105.conf.meetecho.com%2Flist.phpdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ccf5e8855ca2345d31db708d6fed654ab%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636976593831661070sdata=CyGQ0xlUEHGo2mwi6fRINihedThUcAO5u2nta1JOxdU%3Dreserved=0

Thanks,
the Meetecho team

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

[I2nsf] FW: IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda: I2NSF WG session will be on Thurs 10am

[Linda Dunbar]

If no more changes, I2NSF WG session will be on Thurs 10am. 

If you want to presentation slot, please let us know. 

Linda & Yoav

-Original Message-
From: WGChairs  On Behalf Of IETF Agenda
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 5:04 PM
To: Working Group Chairs 
Subject: IETF 105 Preliminary Agenda

The IETF 105 preliminary agenda has been posted. The final agenda will be 
published on Friday, June 28, 2019.  

If you would like to request a change to the preliminary agenda, please send a 
message to age...@ietf.org and copy all relevant Area Directors.

https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F105%2Fagenda.htmldata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C26e4376c9ce34ca41ecf08d6f69459d8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636967514366654228sdata=K4YUKx6gv0mvUa8Q7m369Ps%2B5gzEYMqT8gfviOQ8%2B0g%3Dreserved=0
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F105%2Fagenda.txtdata=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C26e4376c9ce34ca41ecf08d6f69459d8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636967514366654228sdata=3t9Ow%2F8k4KUzcA9vVeHyT1R8Gc5R8YS3YowNiCWPeho%3Dreserved=0

The plenary at IETF 105 will be split into two sections. First, a technical 
plenary from 17:10 to 18:10, followed by the administrative/operations plenary 
from 18:20 to 19:50. The ten minute break in between will allow attendees to 
enter or exit if they wish.

The experiment with unstructured agenda time continues at IETF 105, with an 
hour and fifteen minutes each morning. Continental breakfast will be provided 
in the Congress Hall Foyer from 08:00 - 09:00. Meeting rooms will be available 
for signups from 08:30 - 09:45. Regular WG sessions will begin at 10:00. In 
addition, two attendee signup rooms will be available throughout the week as 
usual. Further details about how to sign up for a meeting room will be 
announced shortly.

Thank you!

IETF Secretariat

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

[I2nsf] need YANG Doctor review of I2NSF WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model

[Linda Dunbar]

YANG Doctors:

I2NSF WG just starts the 3 weeks WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04>  .

We would like to get your review of the document. Can someone on the YANG
Doctor team provide the feedback of this document?

Thank you very much. Greatly appreciated

Linda & Yoav




-- Forwarded message -----
From: Linda Dunbar 
Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:07 PM
Subject: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
To: 


Hello Working Group,



This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04>  .

This poll runs until June 26, 2019.

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04


We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
all the Authors and Contributors.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.





Thank you.

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

[I2nsf] Request for AD review of completed WGLC document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-5

[Linda Dunbar]

Roman,

I2NSF WG has completed the WGLC for the following document: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability/

Here is the Shepperd write-up: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability/shepherdwriteup/

This document is the base for all data models from I2NSF WG. Has been in good 
shape for over a year. Need to move to IESG and for publication.

Could you please review and move to IESG?

Thank you very much,

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

Re: [I2nsf] FW: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Thanks to the editors for making changes to the
draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-04.

We now close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05.
We will write the shepherd write-up and submit to SEC AD for moving forward
IESG.

Editors: AD might have more comments. Please address them promptly to
ensure the procedure moving forward smoothly.

Linda & Yoav

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 5:19 PM Linda Dunbar 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Linda Dunbar
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:51 AM
> *To:* 'i2nsf@ietf.org' 
> *Subject:* WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-04
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
>
>
> This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-04.
>
> This poll runs until May 8, 2019.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
> all the Authors and Contributors.
>
>
>
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Yoav & Linda
>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Rafa and Gabriel:

How about reference the module ietf-access-control-list specified in
RFC8519 to avoid enumerating all the L4 protocols listed in IANA?

The Module ietf-access-control-list specified in RFC8519 only list TCP and
UDP and have ICMP defined using Type/Code (both uint8).

Maybe import the "grouping acl-icmp-header-fields", and augment the L4
protocol values that are not specified by the RFC8519?

Many protocols values listed in *https://www.iana.org/*
assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers..xhtml> are
obsolete. There is no reason to enumerate them in your draft.

My two cents.

Linda


On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:02 AM Rafa Marin-Lopez  wrote:

> Hi Linda:
>
> In order to see whether we are in the same page here I would like to ask a
> question.
>
> What Yoav and Paul (and us) suggested was something as simple as this one:
>
> typedef ike-integrity-algorithm-t
>
> {
> type uint32;
> description
> “The acceptable numbers are defined in IANA Registry - Internet
> Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Parameters - IKEv2  Transform Type 1 -
> Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs";
> }
>
> Following this approach we can solve easily Paul Wouters’ comment by
> replacing this with (for example):
>
> *Option 1)*
>
> typedef ipsec-upper-layer-proto {
>   type uint8;
> description “ The IPsec protection can be applied to specific IP
> traffic and layer 4 traffic (TCP, UDP, SCTP...) or
> ANY protocol in the IP packet payload.”;
> reference “IANA Registry Protocol Numbers”;
> }
>
>
> However if we have to include a type enumeration with one enum and the
> value in the IANA registry per enum we would have something like (in my
> opinion more complex)
>
> *Option 2)*
>
> typedef ipsec-upper-layer-proto {
>type union {
>type uint8;
>type enumeration {
>enum ICMP {
>value 1;
>}
>enum IGMP {
>value 2;
>}
>…
> *//And this enum per each value in
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers..xhtml>*
>}
>}
>}
>
>
> So what option (1 or 2) are you referring to?
>
> Best Regards.
>
> El 17 may 2019, a las 17:39, Linda Dunbar 
> escribió:
>
> Rafa,
>
> With regard to Paul Wouters’ related comment that would imply include
> every number from the IANA protocol registry:  "I think you mean what I
> would call the "inner protocol" so that it is every number from the IANA
> protocol registry.”
>
> I suggest we follow the IETF practices for YANG models:
> There are many YANG models RFCs literally listed the names of the data
> types defined by other RFCs. For example: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09
> which I just reviewed as a Gen-Art Directorate.
> None of those values are registered to IANA
>
> Those IETF practices tell us that it is not necessary to register those
> values registered to IANA.
> So I suggest you take the “reasonable approach proposed by Yoav (Paul
> Wouters agreed) and we are agreed”.
>
> There are also many YANG Model RFCs literally list down the protocol
> values registered in IANA (for example, use “Identity ...” to specify the
> value).
>
> By the way, if you do want to register to IANA, you can send the following
> request which can be easily done.
>
> https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Linda
>
>
> *From:* Rafa Marin Lopez [mailto:r...@um.es ]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2019 4:19 AM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar 
> *Cc:* Rafa Marin Lopez ; Yoav Nir ;
> i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org; Gabriel Lopez ;
> fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04
>
> Dear Linda, Yoav:
>
> Sorry for the delay in our answer (very busy weeks)
>
> The update is taking longer as expected for several reasons: 1) we have to
> add and extend many descriptions we have. 2) Moreover Paul Wouters' second
> review (we are preparing an e-mail for him as well) is long, deserves
> attention and implies to applies changes.
>
> Finally, 3) it is important to note that, under our point of view, there
> is no final resolution about what to do with the IANA Registry values
> related with crypto algorithms. In fact, there is a Paul Wouters’ related
> comment that would imply include every number from the IANA protocol
> registry:  "I think you mean what I would call the "inner protocol" 

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Gabriel and Rofa,

Just to clarify: the purpose of asking you changing from "container.." to
"grouping.." is for  "i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm"  to the "ikev2" and
"ietf-ipsec" structure defined in
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection.
Not other way around, i.e. not asking
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection to import other properties.

By the way, i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm only imported two other data
structure "ietf-inet-types" & "ietf-yang-types" besides the "ikev2" and
"ietf-ipsec".

It has nothing to do with other modules for TTL, SSL, etc.

Thanks, Linda


On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:42 AM Gabriel Lopez  wrote:

> Hi Linda, Paul.
>
> El 20 may 2019, a las 19:52, Linda Dunbar  escribió:
>
> Gabriel,
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Agree with you that *"it does not imply to extend the NSF client
> interface to include all the available yang models for every security
> service a NSF can support.". *
> But a network function that supports I2NSF should be allowed to your IPsec
> module, should it?
>
>
> Sure.
>
> Regards, Gabi.
>
> P.D. Linda, be aware you have included other email destination addresses
> in the “subject” field of our email.
>
>
>
>
>
> what does it mean by you saying the following?
> "the Actual IPsec Configuration" is not same as "our I2NSF interface"?
>
> *That is, our data models assume that the actual IPsec configuration will
> be handled by Rafa's IPsec module through NETCONF, and*
> *our I2NSF interfaces will do nothing related to the IPsec configuration.*
>
>
> Thanks, Linda
>
>
> --
>
> Hi Paul, Linda.
>
>
> Thanks again for your comments.
>
>
> El 18 may 2019, a las 7:11, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
> escribió:
>
>
> Hi Linda,
> For your first question,
> it seems like Gabriel does not like to modify their code to let NSF-Facing
> Interface data module import ikev2 and ietf-ipsec (i.e., ike-less)
> according to IETF YANG conventions such as TLS, SSH, IDS, and ACL.
> In our data models, we will specify whether an NSF supports an IPsec
> configuration mechanism (IKEv2 or IKEless),
> or does not support any IPsec configuration mechanism.
> That is, our data models assume that the actual IPsec configuration will
> be handled by Rafa's IPsec module through NETCONF, and
> our I2NSF interfaces will do nothing related to the IPsec configuration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The question is not whether I (we) like or don't like to modify the model..
> The question is whether it is the best technical approach or not.
> As said before, the ipsec model has been designed to work in a standalone
> mode in a NSF, so the controller can configure ipsec on NSFs without any
> other module.
>
>
> You mention the consensous on the last meeting, but what I get from this
> consensous is to study how, making use of the capability model, the
> controller can learn if the NSF node supports IKE case or IKE-less case,
> and then in the discussion there is a mention to a "reference" to the
> corresponding data model implementing these capabilities (our model) (here
> the "reference" clause could be used). But it does not imply to extend the
> NSF client interface to include all the available yang models for every
> security service a NSF can support.
>
>
> Our main concerns is if the objective of the nsf-client-dm is:
>
>
> - To import all other models (SSH, TLS, ALCs, etc...) just for sake of
> having all of them gathered in a single model (nsf-client-dm). But I don't
> see the benefit. In fact, SSH or TLS yang models are designed to be used by
> other yang model for especific applications, such as a model for HTTPS
> importing the TLS model or a model for a SSH server importing the SSH
> model. What is the service in this case?. In the case of the ACL yang
> module, it is also defined to work in a standalone mode (no main grouping
> based). In the case of IDS, could you point out the yang module?
>
>
> - To adapt them in some way to the ECA model. The ECA model is the
> keystone of the nsf-client-dm, as described in section 4. If it is the
> case, then it is difficult to see examples of how they can be adapted.
>
>
>
>
> Said that, the draft is a WG item and the WG has to decide what is the
> right way to proceed.
>
>
> Regards, Gabi.
>
>
> ---
> Gabriel López Millán
> Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
> University of Murcia
> Spain
> Tel: +34 86504
> Fax: +34 868884151
> email: gab...@um.es 
>
>
>
>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] minor typos (was RE: WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

[Linda Dunbar]

Rafa,

There are some minor typos in -04. Hope you correct them in the new revision:

Page 3: Section 3, 3rd paragraph: “.. and on-demand security network services”
Do you mean “.. and on-demand secure network services”?

Page 6: Section 5.1:  “In this case the NSF ships an IKEv2 implementation..”
Do you mean “In this case the NSF supports an IKEv2..” ?


Page 9, first paragraph: “..this needs to be explore..”
Do you mean “..this needs to be explored”?

Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 10:39 AM
To: 'Rafa Marin Lopez' 
Cc: Yoav Nir ; i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org; Gabriel Lopez 
; fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es; i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Rafa,

With regard to Paul Wouters’ related comment that would imply include every 
number from the IANA protocol registry:  "I think you mean what I would call 
the "inner protocol" so that it is every number from the IANA protocol 
registry.”

I suggest we follow the IETF practices for YANG models:
There are many YANG models RFCs literally listed the names of the data types 
defined by other RFCs. For example: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09 which I 
just reviewed as a Gen-Art Directorate.
None of those values are registered to IANA

Those IETF practices tell us that it is not necessary to register those values 
registered to IANA.
So I suggest you take the “reasonable approach proposed by Yoav (Paul Wouters 
agreed) and we are agreed”.

There are also many YANG Model RFCs literally list down the protocol values 
registered in IANA (for example, use “Identity ..” to specify the value).

By the way, if you do want to register to IANA, you can send the following 
request which can be easily done.

https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment


Cheers,

Linda


From: Rafa Marin Lopez [mailto:r...@um.es]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 4:19 AM
To: Linda Dunbar mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>>
Cc: Rafa Marin Lopez mailto:r...@um.es>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; 
i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org>; Gabriel Lopez 
mailto:gab...@um.es>>; 
fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es<mailto:fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Dear Linda, Yoav:

Sorry for the delay in our answer (very busy weeks)

The update is taking longer as expected for several reasons: 1) we have to add 
and extend many descriptions we have. 2) Moreover Paul Wouters' second review 
(we are preparing an e-mail for him as well) is long, deserves attention and 
implies to applies changes.

Finally, 3) it is important to note that, under our point of view, there is no 
final resolution about what to do with the IANA Registry values related with 
crypto algorithms. In fact, there is a Paul Wouters’ related comment that would 
imply include every number from the IANA protocol registry:  "I think you mean 
what I would call the "inner protocol" so that it is every number from the IANA 
protocol registry.”

Depending on the resolution of the IANA Registry part , it may imply to add 
each value in the IANA protocol registry. For us, this is pointless. We think 
the reasonable approach was proposed by Yoav (Paul Wouters agreed) and we are 
agreed. The only review we have received from the YANG doctor does not mention 
anything about this.

Our hope is to have the updated version, assuming 3) takes a “reasonable” 
solution, at the end of this month (May)

Best Regards.


El 15 may 2019, a las 18:30, Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>> escribió:

Rafa,

Will you upload the revised draft soon? We would like to close the WGLC for 
this draft.

Thanks, Linda

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 9:14 AM
To: 'Rafa Marin-Lopez' mailto:r...@um.es>>; Yoav Nir 
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; 
i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org>
Cc: Gabriel Lopez mailto:gab...@um.es>>; 
fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es<mailto:fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es>
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Rafa, et al,

Yes, please have the revision to address the comments from YANG doctors.

Linda

From: Rafa Marin-Lopez [mailto:r...@um.es]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 1:56 AM
To: Linda Dunbar mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>>; 
Yoav Nir mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>>; 
i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-cha...@ietf.org>
Cc: Rafa Marin-Lopez mailto:r...@um.es>>; Gabriel Lopez 
mailto:gab...@um.es>>;fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es<mailto:fernando.perenig...@cud.upct.es>
Subject: Fwd: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Dear Linda:

Just a short comment. In a previous e-mail, we thought we agreed that we would 
prepare version 05 *before* the beginning of the WGLC. At least that was your 
po