[I2nsf] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-16: (with DISCUSS)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-applicability/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document does provide a little more detailed view (than rfc8329) of the
I2NSF Framework in that it does reference the models that make it up.  However,
these references are all Informative.  I am Balloting DISCUSS because if the
intent is to explain how the models apply to the scenarios, then their
references should be Normative.  I think this is an easy point to address.

Regardless of the type of reference, I agree with others in the fact that this
document presents use cases.  While there is a deliverable in the WG Charter
related to use cases, I think that was satisfied by rfc8192 (Interface to
Network Security Functions (I2NSF): Problem Statement and Use Cases).  My
understanding of the Charter is similar to Mirja's from the "Data Models and
Applicability Statements" milestone.

In order for this document to be an Applicability Statement, I believe that
significant work is needed.  This point is not part of my DISCUSS, so I will
most likely end up ABSTAINing if the document remains in its current form.