IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Call for adoption of draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es> Tue, 03 October 2017 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rafa@um.es>
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 DD259132D51; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 0QbwuD1A28Bd; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xenon43.um.es (xenon43.um.es [IPv6:2001:720:1710:601::43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008AB1321CB; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xenon43.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28422034F; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:49:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at xenon43.um.es
Received: from xenon43.um.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xenon43.um.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EuU00oG6UYet; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:49:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (86.red-88-9-219.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [88.9.219.86]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rafa) by xenon43.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E910D2034B; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 06:49:39 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es>
In-Reply-To: <69785799-3C40-4D51-B468-12A9672ACBD4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 06:49:39 +0200
Cc: Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es>, i2nsf@ietf.org, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBA0781B-48E7-400B-8E16-F84917B5B0FA@um.es>
References: <79CC25F6-4B4D-4171-9DB7-274C629D38FE@gmail.com> <69785799-3C40-4D51-B468-12A9672ACBD4@gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/52VRiVUl8RbcYRSSOV16hdu8YQQ>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Call for adoption of draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 04:49:47 -0000

Dear Yoav, all:

Thank you for all your inputs and discussions about the I-D. We will re-submit as draft-ietf-i2nsf-ipsec-flow-00.

Best Regards.
> El 2 oct 2017, a las 23:58, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> Thank you all for chiming in. The response was mostly positive, and we judge that there is consensus to adopt this draft. 
> 
> Authors: please re-submit as draft-ietf-i2nsf-ipsec-flow-00  .
> 
> During the call for adoption there was a suggestion to split the draft in two.  Because “case 2” (where the controller installs SAs with traffic keys) is controversial whereas “case 1” (where the controller only installs credentials and PAD entries) is not, it was suggested to make case 2 a separate document.  This could well be a decision we will make in the future, but for now Linda and I believe that this is not a good idea.  If the document is split, it means we also have to split the YANG models, creating two separate languages to perform the same task. There would be little point in having an SAD model in the case 1 document, and each document would need different versions of the PAD model.
> 
> For the time being, let’s have a single document. If the security posture is different, this can be covered in the text itself. Note again that this decision is not final or binding and the group may decide to change it before we finish with this document. 
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Yoav
> 
>> On 15 Sep 2017, at 11:09, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> This starts a two-week call for adoption of draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection. Please send in your comments both for and against adopting this as a working group document by EOD Monday, October 2nd.  As always, adoption by the working group does not require consensus on the details, and the group will have plenty of time to discuss the contents and modify them as appropriate.
>> 
>> This draft was proposed a while ago, and the interim meeting earlier this month was dedicated to discussing its issues. For more information:
>> 	• The draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection/
>> 	• The minutes of the interim meeting: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-i2nsf-01/materials/minutes-interim-2017-i2nsf-01-201709061600/
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Yoav
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marin Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: rafa@um.es
----------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email