IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

John Strassner <John.sc.Strassner@huawei.com> Wed, 02 August 2017 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <John.sc.Strassner@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 03146131723; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SPAwSKtx0ym9; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:52:15 -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 AB3EF12706D; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLV10176; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 17:52:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 18:52:11 +0100
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.240]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.13]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:51:54 -0700
From: John Strassner <John.sc.Strassner@huawei.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "'i2nsf@ietf.org'" <I2nsf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology@ietf.org>
CC: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
Thread-Index: AdMLsnZIC2IMwOI6RRm8+6fYAf7oNAABLe6A
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 17:51:53 +0000
Message-ID: <B818037A70EDCC4A86113DA25EC020982209F4E6@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F65943677F@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F65943677F@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.246.88]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B818037A70EDCC4A86113DA25EC020982209F4E6SJCEML703CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.5982114D.008F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.240, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f9e91f63cef59c3c08d455fbfaad32c7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/tQb5jlz3N5WfGBSAIrTs0_zXQWA>
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
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: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 17:52:17 -0000

I expressed some minor concerns before, and will do so again.


*         What is the reasoning against publishing an INFORMATIONAL RFC for terminology?

*         Many of the terms in the current terminology draft are not used in the framework draft

o   This is because the terminology draft was originally conceived to work for many diverse subject areas

o   The framework draft will not cover some of these diverse subjects in detail, and hence, does not need those terms; including them will make the reading awkward at best

*         Thus, I would recommend

o   We keep the current terminology draft until these other subject areas mature and have WG-adopted drafts (a possible alternative is putting them on the wiki; I am not a big fan of wikis)

o   We move the appropriate terms into appropriate drafts

?  Note: this will cause duplication of terms - yet another reason to keep the terminology draft

Regards,
John

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:31 AM
To: 'i2nsf@ietf.org' <I2nsf@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology@ietf.org
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>; Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

I2NSF participants:

During the IETF99 I2NSF Session, our AD Kathleen said that the current IESG doesn't like to have RFC for Terminology only drafts. So we should consider merging the content of Terminology with other drafts. I2NSF framework draft would be a nature place to have the terminologies.

If you have any objections or concerns of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft, please express them to the I2NSF mailing list.

Thanks, Linda & Yoav.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email