[I2nsf] draft-kim-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-00 and draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-03

[Rakesh Kumar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Regarding the two drafts draft-kim-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-00 and draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-03 and merging these with other drafts as mentioned in other threads. I have responded to “draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-03” earlier but here is the consolidated input on both.

Here is my understanding based on reading the two candidate drafts for merge:


1.       draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-03: As per WG suggestion that we merge this draft with “draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01”. I have responded earlier but now that draft has become WG draft “draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req”. I see your draft has few main themes:

o    I2NSF user architecture: As I stated earlier that “draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req” does not focus on specifics of a client/user system. As far as I know, this is outside the scope of I2NSF charter since focus is on the client-interface; so I don’t see this as a candidate for merge. We can discuss if you think my understanding is incorrect.

o    Security requirements for VoIP/VolTE :  I see security requirements such as malware domains,  URL/IP filtering which can be enforced dynamically based on time calendar. This definitely falls into the scope of “draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req”. We have defined these requirements and scheduling methods already but in a more generic way like threat feeds (IP, URL) in section 4.8. The use-case could be as VoIP/VoLTE security as you mentioned but if you think it is not coming out clearly then we can modify the text. Let us work on it.

o    Security management system architecture:  This is not in the scope of “draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req”. As far as I know, this is outside the scope of I2NSF charter since focus is on the NSF-interface; so I don’t see this as a candidate for merge. We can discuss if you think my understanding is incorrect.

2.       draft-kim-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-00: This is a candidate for merge with draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im as you and Linda pointed out but our draft is an information model, not a data model as yours. Anyway, I feel, we have defined these in section 5.1 and 5.3 but we can work with you to see whether you want to add or modify.

I know, this is one of the agenda items in Seoul, we should hash this out while in Seoul. I look forward to working with you on this.

Thanks & Regards,
Rakesh

--- Begin Message ---

Hi Paul,

 

Based on suggestion from Diego to see if we could merge draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01 with draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01.

Our draft deals with interfaces client would use to interact with the security controller/management system. We are discussing only the client interfaces and not the client structure itself. 

 

We should have a discussion to see what can be merged. I look forward to working with you.

 

Thanks & Regards,

Rakesh

From: I2nsf <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 10:43 PM
To: "Diego R. Lopez" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Prof. Hyoungshick Kim" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01

 

Hi Diego, 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Our draft can be aligned with draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01 in that

ours deals with the interface between I2NSF Client and Security Controller.

However, draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01 does not clarify the structure of 

I2NSF Client in a detailed level, but our draft proposes such a detailed structure for I2NSF Client.

 

In addition, our draft considers the policy update in I2NSF through the report from an NSF 

for a security attack (e.g., DDoS attack) or an event (e.g., the detection of a new malware)

toward I2NSF Client. This updated policy is disseminated to the whole I2NSF systems

for spontaneous reaction to the new security attack or event.

 

Like this, our draft is closely related to the the I2NSF framework.

Let us prepare for the text for the I2NSF framework draft, and then discuss

whether our text can fit the I2NSF framework.

 

Thanks.

 

Best Regards,

Paul

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Paul, 

 

While I find agreeable that your draft could be merged with another one (or other ones) in order to consolidate the documents to be produced by I2NSF, I am not 100% sure it should be the framework draft. Looking at the proposals you make  in your draft I see it more aligned with what the drafts dealing with the client-facing interface are considering than with the general framework. In particular, draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-01 has  a section(3.3) that discusses management deployment models, and I am under the impression this architecture you propose could be seen as a refinement of those models.

 

Be goode,

 

On 21 Oct 2016, at 02:54 , Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Hi Linda, 

Are you agreeing at merging our draft (draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-02) 

into draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-03?

 

Thanks.

 

Best Regards,

Paul

 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Linda, 

As a coauthor of this draft, I will answer your questions inline below.

 

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hyoungshick, et al, 

 

How would you position your draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01 with regard to the I2NSF framework draft? I find there are  a lot of duplicated content to the I2nsf  framework draft.

 

 [Paul] We would like to merge our draft into the i2nsf framework draft 

 because our draft has one depth more detailed architecture.

 This detailed architecture will be helpful to implement the i2nsf framework. 

 

 

There are some differences,  such as the following: Are you trying to define how “security policy” is structured?  

 

<image002.png>

 

 [Paul] Our architecture allows an NSF to update a low-level policy and apply it to the related high-level policy

 via the control path of Security Controller and Policy Collector (renamed Event Collector in version 02) in Figure 1

 of our version 02:

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-02

 

 For example, if an NSF of firewall detects a new DoS-attack host, it reports the updated blacklist having

 the IP address of such a host to Application Logic in I2NSF Client via Security Controller and Event Collector. 

 Application Logic asks Policy Updater to disseminate the updated blacklist to the security controllers 

 under the administration of the same I2NSF Client. 

 

Will the “High Level security management” eventually lead to Client Facing Policy data models?

 

 [Paul] Yes, as explained above, the High-level security management leads to update and handle Client facing policy 

 data models.

 

Do you plan to define interfaces between all those components depicted in Figure 1?  The interfaces between some of those components are not really in the I2NSF WG current charter,  such as “Security Policy Manager” <-> “NSF Capability Manager”,  or the interface between “Application Logic” <-> “Policy Updater”.

 

 [Paul]  Yes, we have a plan to define such interfaces.

 

 

Are those components in your current implementation? Is it like an “example of one implementation”?

 

 [Paul] Though those components are not fully implemented yet in our implementation, my team at SKKU 

 will make implement those components in a later version.

 

 Thanks for your clarification questions.

 

 Best Regards,

 Paul

  

 

 

Thanks, Linda 


_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf



 

-- 

===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php



 

-- 

===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[e-mail]
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: [e-mail]
Tel:    [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------

 



 

-- 

===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php

--- End Message ---