IETF Logo Mail Archive

[I2nsf] Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.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 93F7B1293DC for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-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 7NXFrbc0ZaaN for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD33120726 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CXL75512; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:12:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.177) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:12:35 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.179]) by DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.177]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:12:32 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Aldo Basile <cataldo.basile@polito.it>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00
Thread-Index: AdIfISj6h6Y7ZH0eSnSn9OFwXCvr7QACmrvg
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:12:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EE19@dfweml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.147]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EE19dfweml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.57F53485.0117, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 5f45d8e22fb7e8b8f1cfd63410d6bc0a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/LuazDN_EBkCeRSDr9KCtq3X7Byg>
Subject: [I2nsf] Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00
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, 05 Oct 2016 17:12:41 -0000

Aldo and Diego,


The section 4.1 of your draft has this expression:

Our capabilities are defined by a 4-tuple:
(Ac; Cc; RSc; Dc) [ (AC; CC; RSC; DC)= K

Is it intentional to have "[" without the matching one "]"?

What is the relationship between "Ac" and "AC"? are they the same?

If a NSF supports more actions than the simple "permit" or "deny" (e.g. "redirect", "log", "alert", etc), will then be listed in "AC" or "Ac"?

Thanks, Linda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email