IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Call for WG Adoption on NSF Monitoring Draft

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 06 December 2018 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 5F1DD129385 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 05:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 8FijjLz4ICLl for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 05:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41352128C65 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 05:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439bvs16MyzFkH; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:26:01 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1544102761; bh=omelAdlar8QSXGmj6/adEkbe/7un91cs7Pn6KRgB3Hk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=PyA7WCYy4JJ4P9nTnVfm8RHhYppJwtJ7S8Rq+epI4LrlPPP48TPdLbISh1c/3vqMJ 2NwWR3iVzzuEhoakdFNTi7N1mXGvCJ5n+N9FMK2c+e9zgD/x9zIEFSy0lULb0SJCXX GQ88lzFzdPZ2LoINROZXVbhNBDVMTPL3Drurn0AM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ewF8VnmkIpLL; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:25:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:25:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D14F3345876; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:25:57 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca D14F3345876
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52B0418760B; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:25:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:25:57 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5D96C619-820E-44A4-A191-DB99715D63D5@telefonica.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812060823290.1622@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <5D96C619-820E-44A4-A191-DB99715D63D5@telefonica.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/hIGRD2bQAox3DOww3ENYWz6oxfA>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Call for WG Adoption on NSF Monitoring Draft
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:26:08 -0000

> On 05/12/2018, 23:31, "I2nsf on behalf of Linda Dunbar" <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> This is the start of a two weeks call for input on the WG adoption of the document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hong-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

I support adoption. Coming from the IPsec community, one the worst
properties is vendor lock on management of devices. I think it is very
important to get all different kinds of vendors to support a single API
and to allow different devices to communicate and configure and monitor
the security of a network comprising of different vendor equipment.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email