Re: [I2nsf] Is the “Security Service Function (SSF)” in draft-mglt-i2nsf-ssf-collaboration same as the NSF defined by the I2NSF-problem-and-use-cases?

Hi Linda, I apology for the delay. Please find my response and additional questions – mostly for Susan ;-). If you are find with the response, I can also send them on the ML. Q1: There is no difference between SSF and NSF. We will change that in the next version. Thanks for raising it, this

Re: [I2nsf] Is the "Security Service Function (SSF)" in draft-mglt-i2nsf-ssf-collaboration same as the NSF defined by the I2NSF-problem-and-use-cases?

Hi Susan, I deeply apology for not having read carefully the draft-hares-i2nsf-ddos-yang-dm-00, but my understanding is that our protocol would – for example – end up in agreeing using inter-cloud-ddos NSF with the inter-cloud-ddos NETCONF/YANG model. The remaining configuration NETCONF/YANG will

[I2nsf] The I2NSF WG has placed draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The I2NSF WG has placed draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Adrian Farrel) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req/ ___ I2nsf

[I2nsf] Call for WG adoption of draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req

Dear WG: This email serves as a call for WG adoption of draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req as a WG document. The call for adoption will run for 2 weeks ending Oct 5, 2016. The requirement document is one of the key deliverables specified by the I2NSF charter. Please note that this

[I2nsf] I2NSF Interim #2: To discuss NSF facing drafts, to make it ready for WG adoption

BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 VERSION:2.0 BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Central Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16010101T02 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0600 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT