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

2016-11-03 Thread Rakesh Kumar 
Hi,

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

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

Regards, 
Rakesh

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

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

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Do not publish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

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

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

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

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


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

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

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

I support the proposal.

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

Be goode,

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

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

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

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

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

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

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

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

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

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

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

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

2016-11-02 Thread John Strassner 
I agree with your recommendations.

Regards,
John

-Original Message-
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:42 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>
Subject: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

Hi,

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

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

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

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

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

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

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

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

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

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

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

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

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

2016-11-02 Thread Daniel Migault 
I agree. As the gap analysis draft is not to be published, I would probably
try to integrate some very clarifying text/figure into the problem and use
case draft.

Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Farrel  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our
> work as
> RFCs or not. The milestone reads:
>
> > WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs
> (use
> cases,
> > framework, information model, and examination of existing secure
> communication
> > mechanisms)
>
> We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following
> position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree -
> otherwise,
> this is the email of record documenting our plan.
>
> use cases
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases
> Pursue publication
>
> framework
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
> Pursue publication
>
> information model
> Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish.
> Pending adoption and more work.
>
> gap analysis for protocols
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
> Do not publish
> Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive
>
> requirements for protocol extensions
> Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
> Pursue publication
>
> examination of existing secure communication mechanisms
> Aim to add this to  draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
> Pursue publication
>
> terminology
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
> Pursue publication
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

2016-11-02 Thread Adrian Farrel 
Hi,

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

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

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

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

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

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

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

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

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

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

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