Subject: [I2nsf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:05:07 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the various abstains about this draft not appearing to have
archival value. I chose not to ballot "abstain" because I think it's best
to handle that issue at charter or adoption time rather than doing so
this close to the finish line. (I note that the WG charter explicitly
says that the WG may choose not to publish, so this is a borderline
case.) If there really are good reasons to expect archival value, it
would be helpful to include a paragraph early in the document describing
those reasons.

I have a few additional comments on the odd chance this draft
progresses:

-2:
--  B2B describes a business model. I don't see how that is useful for
IETF discussion unless it implies specific technical characteristics. If
it does, them please describe them.
Bespoke": In other usages, "bespoke" often implies positive thing, which
I don't think the draft intends. I think the work "customized" would
better fit the usage herein.

-3: "The "Customer-Provider" relationship may be between any two parties.
The parties can be in different firms or different domains of the same
firm."
There again seem to be implied business models here. Is it technically
relevant if organizations qualify as "firms"?

- 3.1.1:
-- Consider adding DMZ to the glossary
-- "Centralized or Distributed security functions" seems out of place.
The rest of the section describes kinds of security functions; this
describes the design of security functions.

- 3.2.1, first sentence: The second instance of "deploy" seems like a
strange usage. Should this be "use"?

-3.5, title: s/Difficulty/Difficult

-3.6: "SDN-inferred agility"
Should that be SDN "implied" or "conferred" agility?

- 4.2: 
-- "typically by means of Business- to-Business (B2B) communications."
Again, does B2B imply some technical characteristics of the
communication? Otherwise, how is this different than just
"communication"?
-- Figure 3: Please define or cite a definition for Evolved Packet
Core.

-7: Are there no privacy related requirements?

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:20:25 -0400

Ben: 

I am dealing with the editorial comments you indicated.   I am not dealing
with the wider scope issues of information for support documents.  Version
13 is submitted to fix these issues, and to change the draft's status to
informational. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:05 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [I2nsf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

I agree with the various abstains about this draft not appearing to have
archival value. I chose not to ballot "abstain" because I think it's best to
handle that issue at charter or adoption time rather than doing so this
close to the finish line. (I note that the WG charter explicitly says that
the WG may choose not to publish, so this is a borderline
case.) If there really are good reasons to expect archival value, it would
be helpful to include a paragraph early in the document describing those
reasons.

-2:
--  B2B describes a business model. I don't see how that is useful for IETF
discussion unless it implies specific technical characteristics. If it does,
them please describe them.
Bespoke": In other usages, "bespoke" often implies positive thing, which I
don't think the draft intends. I think the work "customized" would better
fit the usage herein.

2-a) Removed B2B in sentence:  
New/For example, an enterprise may mandate that firewalls serving Internet
traffic, within organization, and inter-organization traffic be separated./

2-b) 
Webster defines bespoke as: custom-made
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bespoke).   I believe the
nuances in bespoke better fit, but several people have comment on this issue
- so let's just change it. 

The text you refer to is: 
Old /Since no widely accepted industry standard security interface
 to security NSFs exists today, management of NSFs (device and policy
provisioning,
 monitoring, etc.) tends to be bespoke security management offered by
product vendors. As a result, automation of such services, if it
 exists at all, is also bespoke.
/ 
New/
Since no widely accepted industry standard security interface
 to security NSFs exists today, management of NSFs (device and policy
provisioning,
 monitoring, etc.) tends to be custom-made security management offered by
 product vendors. As a result, automation of such services, if it
 exists at all, is also custom-made.
/

Sue: a replacement of 

New/The "Customer-Provider" relationship may be between any two parties.
      The parties can be in different organization or different domains of
the same
      organization./ 

- 3.1.1:

Sue: DMZ - is in the security glossary - RFC4949.   As such, it was
suggested that we do not need to add it to this draft.   

Sue: beginning of the lists states "Below are a few examples of security
functions and locations or contexts in which they are often deployed:" .
On the list is "DMZ",  Centralized or distributed security functions, and
"security gateways".    The WG choose not to debate whether each was a
function or a location.   Please let me know how high a priority this is for
you as I will have modify the whole list. 

Sue: Yes. 

Sue: Thank you for the change. 

Sue: Thank you.  Conferred 

- 4.2: 
-- "typically by means of Business- to-Business (B2B) communications."
Again, does B2B imply some technical characteristics of the communication?
Otherwise, how is this different than just "communication"?

Removed B2B, and replaced with appropriate text. 

-- Figure 3: Please define or cite a definition for Evolved Packet Core.

Added a reference in the definition section vEPC 

I've added some text, but I can added more. 

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:27:23 -0500

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ben: 
> 

WFM

> exists at all, is also custom-made.

That WFM. In this context, I might suggest “customized”, but either is okay.

>      The parties can be in different organization or different domains of

WFM

> suggested that we do not need to add it to this draft.   

Okay.

> you as I will have modify the whole list. 

It’s certainly not a showstopper, so I will leave it to you to decide. In my case, It took me out of the flow of reading and left me with the Big Bird singing “One of these things….” in my head.  But maybe that’s just me. :-)

[Several points elided to which my replies would be along the lines of “sounds good”]

> I've added some text, but I can added more. 

The text in version 15 looks good to me. (Not sure which version first contained it.)

Thanks!

Ben.