[I2nsf] relationship between draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00 & draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im
Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 20:12 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 185B2129418 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 diM_gEXT-2LX for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:12:00 -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 418461293D6 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CSL59676; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 20:11:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.175) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:11:56 +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 13:11:47 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Aldo Basile <cataldo.basile@polito.it>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, John Strassner <strazpdj@gmail.com>, "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: relationship between draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00 & draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im
Thread-Index: AQHSH0SyHwFvi7vMfUiRr+H6ng222g==
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 20:11:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EFFE@dfweml501-mbb>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657F4EE19@dfweml501-mbb> <70161564-cea3-3081-63db-72eecd71a21c@polito.it>
In-Reply-To: <70161564-cea3-3081-63db-72eecd71a21c@polito.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.147]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.57F55E8D.0216, 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: 8b1604478678650468485a07dfb73b7e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/sfSF6nkkXQqDcgpHhqB-XOW3rg0>
Subject: [I2nsf] relationship between draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00 & draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im
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 20:12:02 -0000
Aldo, Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. You mentioned about merging with John and Frank Xia's draft. Will you merge some content to the "draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im"? Or some content from "draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im" will be merged to yours? Using the I2NSF WG agreed terminologies, (i.e. "NSF-facing-interface" and "Client-facing-interface), the "draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im" not only describes the "capability" information from NSFs, but also the "dynamic rules over the NSF-facing-interface. At today's Interim meeting, can you, John, and Frank explain the partition of the drafts? Thank you very much. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Aldo Basile [mailto:cataldo.basile@polito.it] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 1:56 PM To: Linda Dunbar; i2nsf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities-00 Dear Linda, this ambiguity is a consequence of my bad relation with the textual syntax of I-D, while I usually work with LaTeX and I conceive formulas in LaTeX format (and, honestly, I still don't understand why it is not also adopted by IETF). I'm sorry for this, I'll work to improve formulas readability for the version 01 or for the merged version (the one we are working on with John Strassner and Frank Xialiang). 1) AC (both capital letters) is the set of all the existing actions, thus AC will include "permit", "deny", "redirect", "log", "alert", and all the actions that may describe any of the enforcement activities performed by whatever security function. 2) Ac is a subset of AC that represents the actions actually available at the security function we want to describe. Therefore, for a basic packet filter it will most likely include only "permit", "deny", and "redirect", while more sophisticated functions will have their own set of actions (that, to make the model coherent, should nevertheless be also replicated in the AC that will contain all of them). "[" graphically depicts the LaTeX symbol \subseteq (look at the relation symbols here http://web.ift.uib.no/Teori/KURS/WRK/TeX/symALL.html) which I used to depict the subset relation (a [ b means that the left one contains a subset of the elements in b but it may possibly contain the same elements as b). I added a sentence in the draft explaining this use, but it was probably very vague. Hope this clarifies the and hope I can solve editing issues in the next versions. Regards, Aldo On 05/10/2016 19:12, Linda Dunbar wrote: > > > Aldo and Diego, > > > > > > The section 4.1 of your draft has this expression: > > > > Our capabilities are defined by a 4-tuple: > > (Ac; Cc; RSc; Dc) [ (AC; CC; RSC; DC)= K > > > > Is it intentional to have "[" without the matching one "]"? > > > > What is the relationship between "Ac" and "AC"? are they the same? > > > > If a NSF supports more actions than the simple "permit" or "deny" (e.g. > "redirect", "log", "alert", etc), will then be listed in "AC" or "Ac"? > > > > Thanks, Linda >
- [I2nsf] Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabi… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] Questions about draft-baspez-i2nsf-ca… Aldo Basile
- [I2nsf] relationship between draft-baspez-i2nsf-c… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [I2nsf] relationship between draft-baspez-i2n… Aldo Basile