[Nsaas] Is I2NSF (Open Interface for Network Security Functions) a more accurate name than ?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4828D1A86E8 for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.853
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pc6VtM8p9EV3 for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514451A86E4 for <nsaas@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMK53521; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:43:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:43:31 +0100
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([]) by dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:43:27 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
Thread-Topic: Is I2NSF (Open Interface for Network Security Functions) a more accurate name than [Nsaas] ?
Thread-Index: AQHPzScbMYzFhM84BUm23SHnc89x1A==
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:43:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DE974A@dfweml701-chm>
References: <53E97DB5.3040106@gmail.com> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661978DE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53E98377.1030902@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB236D@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <53EA3EBE.50200@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB2420@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <53EA4704.2090401@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB2460@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <53EA4D5E.70303@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB24CD@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com> <F786A82C-976A-44F5-8832-ACA12CD2477B@telefonica.com> <540CB51B.7010204@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540CB51B.7010204@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nsaas/GVB-MQU9j95PcLny6EfUXN_qmjc
Cc: "nsaas@ietf.org" <nsaas@ietf.org>
Subject: [Nsaas] Is I2NSF (Open Interface for Network Security Functions) a more accurate name than ?
X-BeenThere: nsaas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*NSaaS: Network Security as a Service mailing list*" <nsaas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nsaas>, <mailto:nsaas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsaas/>
List-Post: <mailto:nsaas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsaas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsaas>, <mailto:nsaas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:43:38 -0000

Via the offline discussion with Melinda, I learned that many people may think that NSaaS is more like Marketing slogan. 

Since the goal is to define a common interface for network security functions (like what I2RS has done for routers), so that Service Providers or 3rd party operators can offer Network Security Functions that may not physically present in the client premises. 

Is  "I2NSF" (Open Interface to Network Security functions) a more appropriate name? Any more suggestions? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 2:42 PM
Cc: nsaas@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Nsaas] Existing work, other things

Again, there's been work done in the IETF on some of this (for example, network endpoint assessment (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nea/charter/),
tunnel endpoint discovery, ipsp, and so on.  I think my more general concern is that recently there's been a great deal of work being brought into the IETF that's not product-driven and doesn't have "organic"
support, and it turns out to chew up a lot of IETF resources and frustrate the heck out of its proponents.  No technical work comes out of it and nobody's happy.  Because it's not product-driven there tends not to be a clear, existing framework to slip it into along with real-world requirements and expectations for how it might work.
I don't think the problem statement/framework/requirements process that's developed is working well for the organization, IETF participants, or the industry, and I think that it might be time to take lessons learned about process and apply them here.

That is to say, rather than getting mired in the same old unsuccessful process, it might be a better idea to identify a narrowly-scoped piece of work that *needs* to be done and focus on that.  Talk to product people before bringing a proposal in and asking for a BOF.  I tend to see this effort as going the way of the "cloud" effort, and so on, but it's early enough that it doesn't have to proceed down that same path.  Talk to product people *NOW*, and identify why this work belongs in the IETF.  It should never be the case that the problem you're trying to solve is how to create an IETF working group, but rather how to accomplish a specific piece of technical work that improves networks and networking.

That is to say, talk to people who build products and talk to people who run networks, see what they need.  Bring your product managers into the process.