IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Poll for adoption of two new WG drafts

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267D412DB8C for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.749
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VzuytBOT-uB5 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5582F12DB37 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.77;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, i2nsf@ietf.org
References: <070601d1958e$2c736630$855a3290$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <070601d1958e$2c736630$855a3290$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:32:53 -0400
Message-ID: <02dc01d195dc$cd7adce0$687096a0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02DD_01D195BB.466AC380"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIru0JPnlaiJwsouMm/4SYMQbN0yJ7T2I3A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/-AzYXMZd8zeJa-MxpBEcI36YlK4>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Poll for adoption of two new WG drafts
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:32:59 -0000

I2NSF:

 

<author hat on> 

draft-hares-i2nsf-terminology -  I know of no IPR related to the
terminology.   I feel the terminology is a good start for the terminology
drafts.  It will be improved by aligning with SACM terminology draft.

<author hat off> 

 

The draft-merged-i2nsf-framework-05.txt is a good place to start.   I agree
with Dan that remote attestation (draft-pastor-i2nsf-vnsf-attestation)
should be added.   

 

In our email discussion before IETF 96,  I would like to see the group
policy (draft-you-i2nsf-user-group-based-policy-01) and SDN centralized
control of security devices via I2NSF
(draft-jeong-i2nsf-sdn-security-services-04) discussed enough so we can
determine how these drafts related to the framework.l 

 

Sue Hares 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:10 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] Poll for adoption of two new WG drafts

 

Hi WG,

 

In Buenos Aires we had a discussion of the Framework and Terminology drafts.

 

Although the authors have various changes planned, the chairs think these
documents are ready for adoption into the WG. A poll of the room showed that
no-one at the meeting objected.

 

So this starts a formal, two-week poll for adoption of:

 

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2nsf-terminology/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2nsf-terminology/ at revision
-02 and  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merged-i2nsf-framework/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merged-i2nsf-framework/ at revision
-05

 

Please respond with a "yes" or "no" qualified as much as possible (for
example:

"I have read this draft, and think it is a good foundation", "I have read
this draft and have reservations, but think we can work through them on the
mailing list", "I think this draft is crazy and don't believe the WG can use
it", etc.,

etc.)

 

You do not have to accept or reject the drafts as a pair.

 

Authors!

Please be aware that by being named as authors on the I-Ds you have agreed
to abide by the IETF's IPR policy. You are required to disclose any IPR that
you may reasonably know about "as soon as possible". If you have a problem
with this, please contact the chairs immediately.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

_______________________________________________

I2nsf mailing list

 <mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org> I2nsf@ietf.org

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email