IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Should the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-01 be characterized as "Information model"? or something else?

John Strassner <strazpdj@gmail.com> Mon, 22 May 2017 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <strazpdj@gmail.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 1AE61126CD8; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZkdWJhA8Bngd; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 728A1129B6C; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m18so25481866lfj.0; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gJdyXzoqeQG+75beM01+EfTPrP3MGbYeRyhzCjeyldo=; b=LsShw1CUIoRK93vpQ11iw48tpd3Fh1Ut3d5hqcUPL2AM/pRgH1+FHz+3vGVgsmyzUX D9Sc9g2UxbitZw+aliB6JBs96lkF/IeNPCFmjfoatghSe9RyPKjDLPhj4WhgFhaa2F8X LxR12wpfBPjoWChi0kwdi8Gwkv+RlYzauS5FupdawtVuNwDYiUgsfc3LnRZ9ioYwPtF0 wp3cCnErGK6/mBlWveXrI8It0iA1VoMassDEYjkpgDiI8QgdApgeyXhscmpRy/If3MxC cb8zpU+v1sHLsFtrZEiG6VVEpA0ankniy3cf60wT1ktmEReGYbD19B6+4gm0I/RTvu2y ZRBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gJdyXzoqeQG+75beM01+EfTPrP3MGbYeRyhzCjeyldo=; b=uNlgxBlWQ/GcS/WEnqKoosQmaa79PhJQZ2ivpnUPfGk3bdMg3ek/TrGvJV19S4bugd mgKI+BjG00ESfhKQhci/8kc5y3x0dqC8OI2sHfxT/SWfwXCJme8toZz0PCnHuan9MsXg hz1VGki+pAlqgdZWYO3kKDXMJ0fXgQA8PS8bE53kTWa27HS056QIgmYQC+I8tln6kgfD w9Td3JhIGfaTOpQg8mqbTCaWT6IsreUwZcnt+pJQ4Nk5SLmmnIK3NXSHSbR9ynUXcABz cFf9yl11WQv7RvHgwto+wzSeB/kvYQFPsl9iec1he38bGNQEmXC1IdCtH+Otnx5xRbkH a7/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcA3beqx6GuiSH/UNj9H7WGjthvjXM8tnrlk5duKkE4b/u6xkuUs 3e3NlP2q4GPD5ogheC7h35nAtlpNNA==
X-Received: by 10.25.33.8 with SMTP id h8mr5425967lfh.132.1495436686802; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.225.149 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F6592A35F2@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F6592A35F2@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: John Strassner <strazpdj@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 00:04:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJwYUrHF9fYjT2iD-8iCEgxPCGgykvHN=U_mjkh0xyqy6OC3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Cc: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "Diego R. Lopez" <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Aldo Basile <cataldo.basile@polito.it>, "draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability@ietf.org" <draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability@ietf.org>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f17208044b30550177ce5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/XYoqTQCi3ElL7Hk4C93qV5z5paQ>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Should the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-01 be characterized as "Information model"? or something else?
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: Mon, 22 May 2017 07:04:53 -0000

Hi Linda,

this is an **information model** draft. Note that Figure 1 shows how this
draft is used with external models, such as SUPA. Figures 2-6 describe
Network Security, while Figures 7 and 8 define the Security Capability and
Content Capability models, and FIgure 9 shows an Attack Mitigation
Capability model.

Capabilities are registered on the Registration Interface, and negotiated
and used on the NSF-facing interface.

regards,
John



On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
wrote:

> John, Frank, Diego and Aldo,
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-01 covers the
> I2NSF rule structure.  In your view, should the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability
> be characterized as the information model?
>
> If it is characterized as the information model, are they exchanged over
> the NSF facing interface? Or over the registration interface (identified in
> the Framework draft)?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Linda
>
>
>



-- 
regards,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email