Subject: Re: [I2nsf] 答复: comments on I2NSF charter

From: "Dacheng Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:59:41 +0800

＋1. Addressing problems step by step is a good strategy.

发件人:  I2nsf <[email-masked]> on behalf of "Xialiang (Frank)"
<[email-masked]>
日期:  2015年8月25日 星期二 上午11:44
至:  Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
抄送:  "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Kathleen Moriarty
<[email-masked]>
主题:  [I2nsf] 答复:  comments on I2NSF charter

I agree with Linda, single-headed control should be our reasonable
assumption currently. In the future, following the specification already in
I2RS should also be feasible.
 
Another point I want to mention is about the NSF’s reporting interface. This
interface may be a little bit complex since it needs to report different
kinds of information, such as: action results of security functions,
statistics information of the flows or network, the sharing security
intelligences, etc.
 
B.R.
Frank

发件人: I2nsf [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Linda Dunbar
发送时间: 2015年8月25日 6:25
收件人: Alia Atlas
抄送: [email-masked]; Kathleen Moriarty
主题: Re: [I2nsf] comments on I2NSF charter

Thank Alia for the useful comment.

IMHO, I2NSF should focus on Single-headed control first.

With I2RS one step ahead  in debating/specifying the proper mechanism to
ensure the network integrity with multi-headed control, I2NSF can breathe a
bit. I hope that I2NSF can borrow or simply refer to the multi-headed
control mechanism defined by I2RS when it is finalized.

Thank you for the suggested wording change. I like it. If I don’t hear any
objection, I will change the wiki by tomorrow.

Linda

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

I took a look at the charter at
https://sites.google.com/site/interface2nsf/home
<https://sites.google.com/site/interface2nsf/home>  .

In general, this looks plausible.  I do have a few comments.

First, could you consider and add clarity around whether I2NSF is assuming
single-headed control (as is common in network management systems or
controllers) or is assuming multi-headed control (as I2RS does)?

Second, I'd propose the following minor modification:

Replace:

"However, I2NSF will provide a forum for Informational drafts on data
models, APIs, etc. that demonstrate how more complex Service Layer policies
and formats may be translated to Capability Layer functions."

With

"However, I2NSF will provide a discussion forum for Informational drafts on
data models, APIs, etc. that demonstrate how more complex Service Layer
policies and formats may be translated to Capability Layer functions.  Such
documents would be pursued outside the WG."

Otherwise, it looks reasonable.

Thanks,

Alia

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