Re: [Nsaas] 答复: Existing work, other things

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00931A01DD for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 bJ4nd434Qmqz for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F071A01AA for <nsaas@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id lf10so13340596pab.1 for <nsaas@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ihGzWjvNPK1/W8uqe9JGHliuGthAz8SNhF2aV5Iu0t8=; b=q3sXLg3gJAV9ti2hERmANSdfOGfrG9FcPKEz2ukK6V2C0WRPIywofanPLnzAqTF/iq +icVmgtnEFmc6wLDB5M3doP85nvoUoKBB7An9FCJNwdBZxUXT+4m1UVJSCn9bJIyOxV+ yQg2R1sNML+CiTEainufcujFQz2IOfD0S/CpLGU4p+22b9C8iSFGIv40PntzCaA1f3hA xu4/oUFbL5/mJaErz01grsjnzMWrhKodJv//plmIBJ52sb2r0NcBDqf8UeXFQMa3eiuB 4QEdYhbhWWNF0WGTEnIMxaQoguBg6CT6t2b41U4zKm0VNw2SqTzPHBu0P75MmN3+umFR Rdrg==
X-Received: by 10.66.251.197 with SMTP id zm5mr5256700pac.65.1407860417065; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (216-67-123-104.dynamic.cdma.acsalaska.net. [216.67.123.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dw8sm14422863pab.35.2014.08.12.09.20.15 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53EA3EBE.50200@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:20:14 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "nsaas@ietf.org" <nsaas@ietf.org>
References: <53E97DB5.3040106@gmail.com> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661978DE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53E98377.1030902@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB236D@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645DB236D@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nsaas/YxKLhg_4bTlcPBxdGDymNRyP5tg
Subject: Re: [Nsaas] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgRXhpc3Rpbmcgd29yaywgb3RoZXIgdGhp?= =?utf-8?q?ngs?=
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: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:20:19 -0000

I'm finding the discussion to be a little bit difficult to follow,
to be honest.  Maybe it would be helpful to break things down
point-by-point:

1) The IETF has had considerable experience standardizing
   protocols between some sort of agent or controller and a
   network security device.  These have largely been
   unsuccessful, in the sense that they haven't been implemented
   and deployed.  I think any new effort in this area needs
   to make a case for why it will be successful, given that
   history.

2) If OpenStack is producing work that's being implemented,
   that's a good thing.  It is unclear to me why you would
   bring work "fixing" shortcomings in OpenStack to the IETF,
   rather than to OpenStack

3) I'm not at all clear on why this work is not being discussed
   in the context of sfc, while we're at it.  Why would it not
   fit there - that is to say, why is it a different problem?

Melinda