Re: [I2nsf] Terminology discussion #2: "capability" & "capability interface"

[John Strassner]

Awesome, thanks Sue!

regards,
John

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:

> John:
>
>
>
> For discussion at the interim:
>
> +1 to John’s belief we agreed upon customer facing rather than client.
>
> +1 to John’s concept of specifying separate action that use/manipulate
> capabilities from monitoring functions.
>
>
>
> My comment is practical and design-based.
>
> Practical: The monitoring and telemetry information is undergoing
> substantial growth in the IETF standardization, and the industry. It is
> important to let the capabilities grow separately.
>
> Design based: These are orthogonal functions.  Why should we mix them?
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Strassner
> *Sent:* Monday, September 12, 2016 8:48 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
> *Cc:* i2nsf@ietf.org; Diego R. Lopez
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] Terminology discussion #2: "capability" &
> "capability interface"
>
>
>
> Hi Linda,
>
>
>
>
>
> From the Terminology I-D:
>
>
>
> Client-Facing Interface:  See Consumer-Facing Interface.
>   See also:  Interface, NSF-Facing Interface.
>
>
>
> Consumer-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication
>   with Consumers of NSF data and Services. This is typically
>   defined per I2NSF administrative domain.  See also: Interface,
>   NSF-Facing Interface.
>
>
>
>NSF-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication with
>   a set of NSFs. This is typically defined per I2NSF administrative
>   domain. See also:  Interface, Consumer-Facing Interface.
>
>
>
> Therefore,
>
>
>
>1) I'll bring this up in tomorrow's telecom, but I was pretty sure we
> had
>
>previously decided to use **consumer**, not **client**
>
>2) The point of having a separate Capability Interface is to separate
>
> actions involving using and manipulating capabilities from other
>
> actions, such as monitoring. This is because capabilities are
>
> mechanisms that reflect all or part of the functionality of NSFs.
>
> As such, they are the building blocks for configuration and
>
> monitoring; this seemed to me to warrant a separate interface
>
> for security reasons.
>
>
>
> best regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> As the I2NSF Terminology has defined two types of the “capability”:
>
> -the “capability” from NSFs and
>
> -the “capability” from controller (i.e. as the response to
> Client’s inquiry).
>
>
>
> I find it not necessary to have the “capability interface” as we already
> have Client Facing interface and NSF facing interface.
>
>
>
>Capability:  Defines a set of features that are available from a
>
>   managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Examples of "managed
>
>   entities" are NSFs and Controllers, where NSF Capabilities and
>
>   Controller Capabilities define functionality of an NSF and about
>
>   Controller, respectively. These functions may, but do not have
>
>   to, be used. All Capabilities are announced through the
>
>   Registration Interface.
>
>
>
> *Linda*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> regards,
>
> John
>



-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Terminology discussion #2: "capability" & "capability interface"

[Annika Sparkles]

"this seemed to me to warrant a separate interface for security reasons."

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you want to be able to ensure that
capabilities are only shared with consumers of the service on a need to
know basis? Like perhaps in application this would look like an NSF
containing multiple discrete services, with only a select few of that are
allowed to participate in capability discovery and advertisement? I see
your comment coming from a place much like how network engineers disable
LLDP on access ports to reduce leaking information that may help a threat
actor find vulnerabilities in existing code, or map out the network, etc.

Please let me know if my interpretation is correct.

Warmly,

Annika Sparkles

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Strassner  wrote:

> Hi Linda,
>
>
> From the Terminology I-D:
>
> Client-Facing Interface:  See Consumer-Facing Interface.
>   See also:  Interface, NSF-Facing Interface.
>
> Consumer-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication
>   with Consumers of NSF data and Services. This is typically
>   defined per I2NSF administrative domain.  See also: Interface,
>   NSF-Facing Interface.
>
>NSF-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication with
>   a set of NSFs. This is typically defined per I2NSF administrative
>   domain. See also:  Interface, Consumer-Facing Interface.
>
> Therefore,
>
>1) I'll bring this up in tomorrow's telecom, but I was pretty sure we
> had
>previously decided to use **consumer**, not **client**
>2) The point of having a separate Capability Interface is to separate
> actions involving using and manipulating capabilities from other
> actions, such as monitoring. This is because capabilities are
> mechanisms that reflect all or part of the functionality of NSFs.
> As such, they are the building blocks for configuration and
> monitoring; this seemed to me to warrant a separate interface
> for security reasons.
>
> best regards,
> John
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
> wrote:
>
>> As the I2NSF Terminology has defined two types of the “capability”:
>>
>> -the “capability” from NSFs and
>>
>> -the “capability” from controller (i.e. as the response to
>> Client’s inquiry).
>>
>>
>>
>> I find it not necessary to have the “capability interface” as we already
>> have Client Facing interface and NSF facing interface.
>>
>>
>>
>>Capability:  Defines a set of features that are available from a
>>
>>   managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Examples of "managed
>>
>>   entities" are NSFs and Controllers, where NSF Capabilities and
>>
>>   Controller Capabilities define functionality of an NSF and about
>>
>>   Controller, respectively. These functions may, but do not have
>>
>>   to, be used. All Capabilities are announced through the
>>
>>   Registration Interface.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Linda*
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> John
>
> ___
> 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] Terminology discussion #2: "capability" & "capability interface"

[John Strassner]

Hi Linda,


>From the Terminology I-D:

Client-Facing Interface:  See Consumer-Facing Interface.
  See also:  Interface, NSF-Facing Interface.

Consumer-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication
  with Consumers of NSF data and Services. This is typically
  defined per I2NSF administrative domain.  See also: Interface,
  NSF-Facing Interface.

   NSF-Facing Interface:  An Interface dedicated to communication with
  a set of NSFs. This is typically defined per I2NSF administrative
  domain. See also:  Interface, Consumer-Facing Interface.

Therefore,

   1) I'll bring this up in tomorrow's telecom, but I was pretty sure we had
   previously decided to use **consumer**, not **client**
   2) The point of having a separate Capability Interface is to separate
actions involving using and manipulating capabilities from other
actions, such as monitoring. This is because capabilities are
mechanisms that reflect all or part of the functionality of NSFs.
As such, they are the building blocks for configuration and
monitoring; this seemed to me to warrant a separate interface
for security reasons.

best regards,
John

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
wrote:

> As the I2NSF Terminology has defined two types of the “capability”:
>
> -the “capability” from NSFs and
>
> -the “capability” from controller (i.e. as the response to
> Client’s inquiry).
>
>
>
> I find it not necessary to have the “capability interface” as we already
> have Client Facing interface and NSF facing interface.
>
>
>
>Capability:  Defines a set of features that are available from a
>
>   managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Examples of "managed
>
>   entities" are NSFs and Controllers, where NSF Capabilities and
>
>   Controller Capabilities define functionality of an NSF and about
>
>   Controller, respectively. These functions may, but do not have
>
>   to, be used. All Capabilities are announced through the
>
>   Registration Interface.
>
>
>
> *Linda*
>
>
>



-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

[I2nsf] Terminology discussion #2: "capability" & "capability interface"

[Linda Dunbar]

As the I2NSF Terminology has defined two types of the "capability":

-the "capability" from NSFs and

-the "capability" from controller (i.e. as the response to Client's 
inquiry).

I find it not necessary to have the "capability interface" as we already have 
Client Facing interface and NSF facing interface.

   Capability:  Defines a set of features that are available from a
  managed entity (see also I2NSF Capability). Examples of "managed
  entities" are NSFs and Controllers, where NSF Capabilities and
  Controller Capabilities define functionality of an NSF and about
  Controller, respectively. These functions may, but do not have
  to, be used. All Capabilities are announced through the
  Registration Interface.

Linda

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