Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

John and Adrian:

I'd like to comment on your recommendations.  I agree that the gap analysis
should just be input to other documents.  The gap analysis served its
purpose by pointing us to work that needed to be done.  I'll be glad to keep
it up to date. 

I agree with publication for (use cases:
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases), Terminology
(draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework), framework (draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework),
protocol extensions (client-facing), examination of existing secure
communication mechanisms (draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00). 

I think we probably should publish the information model and the data.  Why?
I think information models are useful when you are creating new
functionality.  In many of the NETMOD models that are only yang models, the
models are recasting old netmod work. 
information model.

One heads up to the chairs, the IESG has determined that the I2RS work on
the protocol strawman will be broken into pieces and given to the NETCONF
and NETMOD working group.   Based on that input, I will be uploading 3
drafts (Netconf changes for I2RS, RESTCONF changes for I2RS, and  Yang model
changes for I2RS requirements) that cover the additional technology for I2RS
ephemeral state.   In case you did not know, the pub/sub and notification
drafts have already been submitted to NETCONF.  

However, there is one piece that is not being covered - the communication
with the I2RS/I2NSF agent during DoS attacks.  The I2RS, I2NSF, and DOTS
work shares the need to get a "help me" message out/in to the nodes during
these time periods.   Would it be possible to schedule an interim in
December or January to discuss this topic? 

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 1:35 AM
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

I agree with your recommendations.

Regards,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:42 AM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?

Hi,

We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our work
as RFCs or not. The milestone reads:

> WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs 
> (use
cases,
> framework, information model, and examination of existing secure 
> communication
> mechanisms)

We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following
position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree -
otherwise, this is the email of record documenting our plan.

use cases
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases
Pursue publication

framework
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Pursue publication

information model
Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish.
Pending adoption and more work.

gap analysis for protocols
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
Do not publish
Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive

requirements for protocol extensions
Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
Pursue publication

examination of existing secure communication mechanisms Aim to add this to
draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00
Pursue publication

terminology
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
Pursue publication

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf