Subject: [netmod] draft-haas-i2rs-netmod-netconf-requirements-01 (2 week WG adoption - (5/26 to 6/9/2015)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:36:26 -0400

This begins a 2 week adoption call for
draft-haas-i2rs-netmod-netconf-requirements-01 (5/26 to 6/9/2015). This
document is a companion to three other documents for I2RS requirements which
have WG calls: 

This draft is an early set of requirements from which the ephemeral state
and "identity, secondary-identity and priority" were pulled into
draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs.  The  notification-subscription were
pulled into the draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirments.   The traceability had
been separated before draft-haas-i2rs-nemod-netconf-requirements was
published. This draft remains the only source for mutual authentication
requirements (section 2.2), transaction requirements, and the history of the
discussion.   This draft is being requested to be adopted as a general
roadmap for the I2RS WG. In the future, the I2RS WG will accept more
detailed specification on the mutual authentication or the transaction
protocol. 

I2RS Status: WG Adoption (5/26 to 6/9) 

The three other documents are: 

1)      Draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs-00

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs/

  This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working

   Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements

   to implement the I2RS architecture.

2)
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/>
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-02  

    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

    I2RS Status: WG LC (5/26 to 6/9) 

3)       <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/>
draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-02 

     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

      (5/26 to 6/9) 

This thread is to discuss the draft-haas-i2rs-netmod-netconf-requirements-01
( (5/26 to 6/9).  Jeff is the author so he will be kicking of the response
to the adoption call and state if he knows of any IPR.

Please note that the adoption of this draft is to show WG direction, and we
expect a more detailed draft may be created for mutual authentication
requirements (section 2.2) and transaction requirements.  Jeff and I welcome
more detailed proposals for mutual authentication requirements (section 2.2)
and transaction requirements.  If you are interested in working on a quick
turn on a proposal, please contact me.  I am working on this draft and would
like co-authors. 

Sue Hares 

PS - Yes - I know an IPR call on a requirements draft may seem silly, but it
is required.