Subject: [I2nsf] Comments on draft-kumar-i2nsfcontroller-use-cases-00.txt versus draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-01.txt

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:05:57 -0400

Kumar, Anil, Dave, and Xiaobo: 

Thank you for submitting the draft-kumar-i2nsf-controller-use-cases-00.txt
to the I2NSF repository.   The draft does point out use cases that we
summarized into section 4, but in my personal review of your draft we've
gone too far in our summarization.  I think it makes a good point that we
should expand section 4 of the draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases to
include the following: 

1)      In section 4.2, we should include Core network and provide
additional input on needs of mobile and residential users versus the general
use case.  We can draw the concepts from your section 3.1 and 4.1-4.2. 

2)      In section 4, I think would be good to explicitly add a use case
that includes the enterprise 3 tier structure (branch office, campus/main
office, and data structure).   I believe placing after section 4.3 and
before the current 4.4 would be the best place for this.  We can draw text
from section 

3)       

In section 3.3 of multiple clouds Is covered in section 4.3.3, but I will
see if I can sharpen some of the language there with my co-authors. 

The categorization of the services needs to be retrofitted into section
3.1's problems and 3.2's challenges to users.  If you have any direct
feedback on changes that reflect sections 4.1 to section 6.0, please let me
know.  Otherwise, I will attempt a merge and get feedback from my co-authors
and your co-authors. 

Terms such as "parental control", "external thread management", "lateral
threat management", "Robust Service delivery", "Gi_Fw", "GiLAN service", and
"MEC service delivery" must be approved by the I2NSF terminology draft.  I
believe the technical portion of these functions can be expressed with or
without most of these terms.  (Parental control is a common enough term that
it may be able to be used). 

Sue