IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Spud] Interactions between SPUD and I2NSF

"Philipp S. Schmidt" <phils@in-panik.de> Tue, 10 February 2015 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <phils@in-panik.de>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D20D1A1A32 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:23:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.15
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 8sKozGKCY3tu for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [IPv6:2001:bf0:c000::1:8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0379B1A1A13 for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-From: phils@in-panik.de
X-Envelope-To: <spud@ietf.org>
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de (x-change.in-berlin.de [217.197.86.40]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t1AGN2qZ008484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:23:03 +0100
Received: from hedwig.krautrouting.org ([217.197.86.49]) by x-berg.in-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <phils@in-panik.de>) id 1YLDZx-0004fq-F0 for spud@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:22:25 +0100
From: "Philipp S. Schmidt" <phils@in-panik.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A8E35FF3-A4E6-43CE-BE3C-BD968967081A@in-panik.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:23:01 +0100
To: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/Ph_IVtEYBGvoTgEa0U97kNnChEw>
Subject: [Spud] Interactions between SPUD and I2NSF
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:23:21 -0000

Hi,

as a response to our position paper at IAB SEMI workshop, I was aksed to
comment on the not-yet-cartered I2NSF WG (Interface to Network Security Functions).

I see a lot of overlap between the "service layer" defined in [draft-dunbar-i2nsf-problem-statement], but I am a little shaken between have an “joint approach” the complexity the whole frameing of I2NSF implies.

AVE!
  Philipp S. Schmidt / phils…
-- 
   {phils}--->---(phils@in-panik.de)--->---(http://phils.in-panik.de)----,
      wenn w eine   aube ist dn      man au dran dre en                   |
           o     Schr        an muss     hc         h   (Kurt Schwitters) |
:wq!  <---(phone: +49-179-6737439)---<---(jabber: phils@jabber.ccc.de)---'

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email