Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 04 June 2014 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3130B1A0356 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bBnpygypqpXe for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x236.google.com (mail-pb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C281A0339 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jt11so87986pbb.13 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:32:57 -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=8I9uZ5dljyPOVTtdADG5NX2mSOQZh7K/9wvW9aNeIoo=; b=AuxxBiQTSZZYmZMe0uPq7D+6zmmxhB+v9b3d/8GapL+ruOH22sbw03d2y9tDzOuZ+7 5RHxKpF0Hl+dW4oVcZq69uxQWLI+qV4z8UtV8kIfLrgALwwsW6+CPAEyCRngjQIvtWIp G4ebFeLE59d0IiRy3ebh9awogBCGwx61tLaB4rvygoiMRGUw4AtJIQCqmp8RocOMgNPj GpIJoqDu9rqTRgsDhNMaZti7RrU7BNJpXURLx9NVda5YePtMmx0rxxCmYODZN619OD90 mJER3WJzoE+eCMrgGYw4aWh7BlHIevku0eXJyNO5HNKvsP+i+FgWkiUMwR6/L2VhxFCu ImjQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.215.3 with SMTP id oe3mr67554365pbc.109.1401917577174; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (63-140-85-79.nwc.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.85.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ci4sm14082661pbb.50.2014.06.04.14.32.56 for <vnfpool@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <538F9086.6020003@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:32:54 -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: vnfpool@ietf.org
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667796614030A@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3234ED45@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local>
In-Reply-To: <65174429B5AF4C45BD0798810EC48E0A3234ED45@EX-0-MB2.lancs.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/M-GyZugpITAX801rPsXkQPTPJAU
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter
X-BeenThere: vnfpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <vnfpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vnfpool/>
List-Post: <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:33:05 -0000

On 6/4/14 1:27 PM, King, Daniel wrote:
> - Also, does Trust imply Policy, or vice versa?

Typically in an IETF context it implies mechanism.

> Charter Milestones - Perhaps specify a security should be
> investigated along with manageability in the following milestone:
> 
> "August 2015 - Submit VNFPool Requirements, including the
> manageability and security of VNF Pools to the IESG for publication
> as an Informational document."

My general sense is that doing security requirements
separately is generally not successful, and that
including them in this sort of context tends to lead
to overly generic requirements that may not be
applicable to the technology that's ultimately adopted.

Melinda