Subject: [I2nsf] Deborah Brungard's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:20:53 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: Abstain

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to other Abstains, I won't block publication but question the
value, especially the current version to be published at this time. The
document rambles on descriptions and it is not concise on the problem to
be addressed by i2nsf. I recommend holding off on publication until it
can be fine tuned, it currently appears to be a cut and paste of many
documents.

Examples, section 5 seems to summarize that i2nsf will only focus on
policy provisioning. Yet, section 3.4 discusses capability negotiation
and 3.1.2 discusses monitoring mechanisms and execution status of NSFs
capabilities. And other sections also infer much more, describing
expectations of security controller functionality.

There are several rather overzealous claims: Section 4.4 "botnet attacks
could be easily prevented by provisioning security policies using the
i2nsf..interface" and section 4.5 "security controller would keep track
of ..if there is any policy violation ..proof..in full compliance with
the required regulations".

Several sentences don't parse e.g. "thereby raising concerns about the
ability of SDN computation logic to send security policy-provisioning
information to the participating NSFs".

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:52:31 -0400

Deborah: 

I asked Kathleen to move this one out 2 more weeks so that we could work
through any issues you have with the document.   Version 15 will take care
of all other editorial comments.   During the next few days or next Monday,
perhaps we could chat on a phone call. 

I'm glad to change anything that does not parse or smooth out particular
sections. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Deborah Brungard
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:21 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [I2nsf] Deborah Brungard's Abstain 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.)

Similar to other Abstains, I won't block publication but question the value,
especially the current version to be published at this time. The document
rambles on descriptions and it is not concise on the problem to be addressed
by i2nsf. I recommend holding off on publication until it can be fine tuned,
it currently appears to be a cut and paste of many documents.

Examples, section 5 seems to summarize that i2nsf will only focus on policy
provisioning. Yet, section 3.4 discusses capability negotiation and 3.1.2
discusses monitoring mechanisms and execution status of NSFs capabilities.
And other sections also infer much more, describing expectations of security
controller functionality.

There are several rather overzealous claims: Section 4.4 "botnet attacks
could be easily prevented by provisioning security policies using the
i2nsf..interface" and section 4.5 "security controller would keep track of
..if there is any policy violation ..proof..in full compliance with the
required regulations".

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