IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Diego R. Lopez" <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com> Thu, 03 November 2016 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.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 A2ADF129715 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 SMMFeK2EV5ol for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db5eur01on0096.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.2.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119D1129766 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DB6PR0601MB2167.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.168.57.26) by DB6PR0601MB2165.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.168.57.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.12; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 08:57:02 +0000
Received: from DB6PR0601MB2167.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.57.26]) by DB6PR0601MB2167.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.57.26]) with mapi id 15.01.0693.009; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 08:57:02 +0000
From: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?
Thread-Index: AdI1OMuOIxe/Y2TRRAyM9mvFSt7GuAAd3KQA
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <7B5EEBD6-862A-4C0C-98D3-B0D6715CD92E@telefonica.com>
References: <047b01d23538$d076e820$7164b860$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <047b01d23538$d076e820$7164b860$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [195.37.186.62]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3d613a26-7550-4568-3e74-08d403c76114
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB6PR0601MB2165; 7:AI2iar+hB0jWfN45RMb7Jbvh6smhqW+G6o8QQ1ujR02imNPTFXe3qd4jYniKfMttZ1FGjWqdkfEPVgzUJ18TMjvr9Sz0RQjwWT8I5Qr4jObiz1sM7GEPIcdWM1uX8Wnuh4Kf8vGiQQEg6HEjC9QlDouMXcm4oq4Un4U9eu05+h9B6XP6UX+eC94dZC1jsyNkefMpUUNW1SRYz2gEgPunV27CwrpE1tvxbSkqLTDd8+PFR7ZMIcnXVUNUakZd3x0qQ2Pu9LZo1Now8b+ALKgO/3Y45R1Lo7os7G3QCLaLJqGmH4pNMctd9KkjvA2z6Ge0D19B1qXTiEMnuVS2s7EjSSuCOZiJDwidVl5tV6QPyzI=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB6PR0601MB2165;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB6PR0601MB216540DDD2E4076CF3C1DFA0DFA30@DB6PR0601MB2165.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(40392960112811);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:DB6PR0601MB2165; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB6PR0601MB2165;
x-forefront-prvs: 011579F31F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(252514010)(24454002)(83716003)(19617315012)(561944003)(33656002)(81156014)(189998001)(10400500002)(110136003)(97736004)(2351001)(15975445007)(8936002)(77096005)(106356001)(2900100001)(105586002)(87936001)(5660300001)(5002640100001)(36756003)(82746002)(16236675004)(122556002)(3280700002)(7906003)(1730700003)(3660700001)(6916009)(81166006)(86362001)(11100500001)(76176999)(92566002)(54356999)(50986999)(19580395003)(19580405001)(66066001)(2950100002)(102836003)(3846002)(7846002)(2906002)(101416001)(68736007)(2501003)(8676002)(6116002)(7736002)(4326007)(586003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6PR0601MB2165; H:DB6PR0601MB2167.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: telefonica.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7B5EEBD6862A4C0C98D3B0D6715CD92Etelefonicacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: telefonica.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Nov 2016 08:57:02.7864 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9744600e-3e04-492e-baa1-25ec245c6f10
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0601MB2165
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/nfcMj8VI8z-RbxB9SJvMzn3i70I>
Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] RFC or not RFC in I2NSF?
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:57:19 -0000

Hi,

I support the proposal.

We will need to have a similar decision about the attestation draft, though I think we the WG can wait till we the authors provide the next version and make a concrete recommendation to be discussed…

Be goode,

On 2 Nov 2016, at 19:42 , Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:

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<mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email