[Nsaas] A ore accurate name....

"Brian Ford (brford)" <brford@cisco.com> Thu, 11 September 2014 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <brford@cisco.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 A8D161A0442 for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.152
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJdG7aEXoxza for <nsaas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1711A03EE for <nsaas@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6422; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410394203; x=1411603803; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=CH1la3//OqpgTwVbCyc8bZHFMAwW4OGLtRnSCsmBzv0=; b=ga3lWWn8729SuQ6xz29RXosx8JfpYEpWMoenSB8fDKqNFP4kwuWm7vz4 nguizihpsZMkBcSgKZUj9enoEB9hwEinQHow7wrjrl2m/9dUUZEGLEn8z 7gaUnpOBDwR7K916S/gCtcZt4x2wXUlV4DKrMtiApQ50N7f6EGZUiJM49 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au8MAFjnEFStJV2b/2dsb2JhbABdA4JHRlNbsn6XPgEBh1UBgREWeIQKbxwBRzkUEwQTHogkmmKkcQEXjz0WEoInU4FBBZFJhDCHA4Ffk1qDYWyBSIEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,502,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="354058624"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2014 00:10:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8B0A2bE029486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <nsaas@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:10:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x14.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:10:02 -0500
From: "Brian Ford (brford)" <brford@cisco.com>
To: "nsaas@ietf.org" <nsaas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A ore accurate name....
Thread-Index: AQHPzVS6RYHfq5A4jUOtiD9U5wbaew==
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:10:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D0366094.5C97%brford@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D03660945C97brfordciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nsaas/ucqugd9iwomFdqP1VF1EoIKxOJo
Subject: [Nsaas] A ore accurate name....
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: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:10:35 -0000


IMO someone can make the argument that just about any acronym is like a ‘Marketing program’.  Changing the name of the pre-WG effort for that reason alone doesn’t seem wise ego me.  Changing it from something …’was’ to include ‘Open’ doesn’t seem like a big win.

When I first read your messages about Network Security as a Service I was interested.  I still am even though I know little more than the name.

I have been watching and involved in SACM, Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring.  One of my concerns that I have about SACM are its almost myopic endpoint focus.  I’m particularly interested in NSaaS because it could or might address the application of security policy in networks that protect all devices be they endpoints or VMs or intelligent lightbulbs in an IoT (or IoE).

I see ‘daylight’ between SACM and NSaaS.  But they could help each other.  Let’s start working on the real problem.



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?


  Brian Ford | OCTAO | brford@cisco.com<mailto::brford@cisco.com> | Direct 212.714.4288 | Mobile: 516.769.5884 | twitter.com/ccie2106