Re: [vnfpool] comments on VNF Pool Charter

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/19/14 9:17 PM, Sood, Kapil wrote:
> [Kapil] Well, I believe there will be many cases where the VIM/VNFM will
> need to determine the infrastructure conditions, even for SBY/ACT
> placements,  so I agree your suggestion to add appropriate text to the
> charter questions.

Hi, Kapil: at this point in the process we're trying to identify
the questions that a working group, should it be chartered, will
address, and it seems to me that at this time we're probably more
concerned with how to define the question so that it's something
we can answer - that is to say, we need to identify which pieces
of information will need to be used as the basis for a failover,
as well as which pieces of information will need to be transferred
or replicated.  (As a side note it's pretty clear that we'll need
to identify what's coupled with and dependent on ETSI NFV vs.
what's coupled with and dependent on IETF sfc).

> I do have a follow-up question on the contents of the specific images,
> more specifically live state including any secrets or sensitive
> information protection.  Is the charter dealing with the security
> aspects, too?

Yes, any work undertaken in the IETF needs to address security issues
(including privacy), and that's one of our higher-priority concerns
given the sensitivity of network state and potentially very serious
problems around service state.  We've got people with security
expertise involved right now, and may choose to exercise the option
of early security review as the documents progress.

Melinda