IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ideas] some comments on the requirement draft

Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720A91294A4 for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 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] 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 L2qu6_8fy8m5 for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:47:49 -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 932611315D7 for <ideas@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:47:17 -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 DDC97054; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:47:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:47:14 +0000
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.8]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.233]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:46:57 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: "Liubingyang (Bryan)" <liubingyang@huawei.com>, "ideas@ietf.org" <ideas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: some comments on the requirement draft
Thread-Index: AdKgfVaSvcPpAaRbRnOoqKqpjjIcOQBIrTYw
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:46:57 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0DF8AE0C@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <C1CE72EE84AF224E94DA21AE134209EE010194C9@SZXEMI508-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C1CE72EE84AF224E94DA21AE134209EE010194C9@SZXEMI508-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.48.108]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0DF8AE0CSJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.58D015A3.0477, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.8, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 92700da5bf48701c78b2ca256219b46f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/7UVZHWHyQNJUcwqsUXtbG0uIONo>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] some comments on the requirement draft
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:47:53 -0000

Hello Bingyang,

Thank you for your detailed comments!

Given that this is a requirements document, not an architectural overview of GRIDS, I am not sure this is the right place to put a diagram, but clearly a diagram will be needed somewhere, as you rightfully point out.

Sure, we can discuss the naming.  GRIDS itself is more encompassing than GRIDS-IS and from the definition the distinction should be clear, but I agree that when the acronyms are expanded, the IS term sounds very similar which is something we may want to avoid.

I agree the policy-based authorization aspect deserves further expansion as well as potentially some examples of policies that could be applied.

On IS-10, sure we can mention this - note taken for next revision.

Regarding root-of-trust, we probably need more discussions.  This is still rev -00 so there are likely additional requirements that we need to put.

Best
--- Alex

From: Ideas [mailto:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Liubingyang (Bryan)
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 12:10 AM
To: ideas@ietf.org
Subject: [Ideas] some comments on the requirement draft

Thanks for the authors for the work. I think this doc is very important for specifying the difference between ideas/grids from related works.

I suggest that in the next version, there should be a figure sketching the module structure of GRIDS, including the layers and interfaces between GRIDS-IS, GRIDS-MS, and GRIDS-SS, as well as the external service interfaces. One detail comment is that GRIDS-IS might not be a perfect naming, since it is "id service - id service".

For REQ-MS-40, a companion requirement may be needed for authorization (like REQ-MS-30), which allows authorized client to update the access-control list.

For REQ-IS-10, it is better to explicitly show that length and structure are two independent dimensions.

I think "root-of-trust" is an important element, which need to appear in the next version.

Best
Bingyang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email