IETF Logo Mail Archive

[I2nsf] questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 17:34 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 D8BF71297BF for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:34:55 -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 jMpFL2TbFg7e for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:34:53 -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 85C661297B5 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CXL77515; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:34:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.175) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:34:43 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.179]) by dfweml701-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.175]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:34:36 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: "Prof. Hyoungshick Kim" <hyoung@skku.edu>, "Pauljeong@skku.edu" <Pauljeong@skku.edu>
Thread-Topic: questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01
Thread-Index: AdIfLr34lp0f6oZyTDaMYfxR84GDzg==
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:34:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EE78@dfweml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.147]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EE78dfweml501mbb_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.57F539BB.000E, 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: e43e7cdb8935de3866ea46062ae2baad
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/X9lHpPDyirZYYAsUIXvOTKa2gaw>
Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
Subject: [I2nsf] questions about draft-kim-i2nsf-security-management-architecture-01
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 17:34:56 -0000

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.

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

[cid:image002.png@01D21F04.D52074D0]

Will the "High Level security management" eventually lead to 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".

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


Thanks, Linda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email