[I2nsf] Service Layer Policies - Post 0: note structure

John Strassner <strazpdj@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2015 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <strazpdj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966B31A9068 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 xnFWkA_5_--Y for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 D18D81A9067 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkca188 with SMTP id a188so94590726vkc.0 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:00:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KXG+1vsnT9ER/95aW58nLo72RHJiYk06w76bvC92xdM=; b=e1mpA5FrtNom6POwef8YEGzE5Iu31nlbsz2d6oDEv8Y0n/dXM9CbJ4tbw7ROtdUNaP 1xSvcZIGuFV50WtHJ2UbKRwolOPwefwlD3fDk4D3YSnRx61euP7b+OGmac30DlZ9LrQH Z9Ci4y32xqS/rds1/6awfgT5eIiNW/1aaGUC+R+V2xOGDaT/Teb/ZiFDpgAGkH6zriTe 8RJMgf1XeH2sIEhrCq5R7Oyrcdze4KCgaEVbtkSnJhGeopF+hEUk8kwGjOmByfivtwN1 3NhXC+0IwKlpzuTi8DdUWsKTZGzgtOLoaTi0bO1FCr0CpFvqrUIRgkT16yd5zrMNN17K 1Tsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.4.208 with SMTP id 199mr17013236vke.110.1449450021879; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.40.131 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:00:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJwYUrFofZHG+b5oPjsi8cMoJ9MjUnoHY5kcE_KW0NKxSrc2fA@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Strassner <strazpdj@gmail.com>
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142a4d2ac854905264461ed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/SF2LIAjfwNmxXLomU3vp3KddyBE>
Subject: [I2nsf] Service Layer Policies - Post 0: note structure
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 01:00:24 -0000

The I2NSF framework draft mentions PCIM (RFC3060) and PCIMe (RFC3460) as
possible candidates for guiding the policy structure that can be mapped to
the Capability Layer's "Subject-Object-Action-Function" paradigm.
During IETF94, I expressed discomfort with the above paradigm. However,
this is a complex subject, and is more easily understood by breaking this
up into smaller discussions. Here is the order of notes that I will post:

   Post 0:  this post
   Post 1:  problems in using PCIM
   Post 2:  problems in using PCIMe
   Post 3:  differentiating between groups and roles
   Post 4:  differentiating between context, constraints, and conditions
   Post 5:  specific worries about the "Subject-Object-Action-Function"
paradigm
   Post 6:  proposed replacement policy structure

Posts 1 and 2 clarify the problems in using PCIM and PCIMe, respectively,
which I volunteered to do.

Posts 3 and 4 are fundamental to posts 5 and 6, as they represent software
building blocks that are critical for designing and implementing Service
Policies in a scalable and robust manner. These also expand on points in
posts 1 and 2.

Post 5 is the heart of the manner, but can't really be tackled until the
preceding posts were done. Post 6 builds on the previous posts.

regards,
John
-- 
regards,
John