Subject: [I2nsf] Status update from the chairs

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:32:51 -0000

Hi,

Linda and I thought it might be helpful to give a summary of status and next
steps...

draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases
- Thanks to last call reviewers
- Very many thanks to Sue for addressing issues raised
- Revision -09 is now with our AD
- Expect...
   - SecDir and OpsDir reviews
   - AD review
   - some updates

draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology
- This is now on the critical path
- The chairs just had a call with John Strassner as doc editor
   - Proposed focussing on  I2NSF-specific terminology
   - Remove or de-emphasise some of the generic terms
   - Agreement on some minor word-smithing for clarity
- John hopes for a new revision "in the near future"

draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
- Ready to go to last call but...
- Must be updated to match terminology when that is updated

draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-
- Adopted in October, but no progress since
- Draft looks reasonably full, but...
   - Will need to be updated to match terminology updates
   - Missing a Security Considerations section!
   - The WG *really* needs to review and discuss
   - There are some minor idnits

Next milestones:

Nov 2016  Adopt info model as WG document (if desired) 
We have four information model documents
- draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-00
- draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-01
- draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-00 
- draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-02
These are relatively new work (although draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability is a
merger of previous work in the form of draft-baspez-i2nsf-capabilities and
draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im).
The existence of these drafts suggests that you think IMs are useful, but do
they need to be WG I-Ds (and do they need to become RFCs) or can we just use
them to help guide our data modelling?

Dec 2016  Adopt examination of existing secure communication mechanisms as WG
document  
I'm wondering whether the necessary information for this isn't already in the
framework draft.
Opinions?

Feb 2017  Adopt data models as WG document  
We have some data model documents
- draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-00 
   - replaces (I think) draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-yang-01
   - does it compete with draft-jeong-i2nsf-capability-interface-yang-03?
- draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-00 
   - replaces (I think) draft-kim-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-00
- draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-00
Would be good to hear what the authors think is the status of this work so that
the chairs can see what is ready for adoption.

Apr 2017  Adopt IANA registry consideration as WG document  
This may continue to be a premature milestone.
But if someone wants to take a look and start a draft, please go ahead.

Apr 2017  Adopt applicability statements as WG Document  
There is some early work (often expressed in terms of use cases). What we will
be looking for is "This is how you use the architecture and data models to
achieve a specific function." Basically, what we need is a few (but not a
complete set!) classic examples to help other people put together their
implementations and deployments.

Meeting in Chicago
>From all this, it looks like some reasonable topics in Chicago will be:
- Terminology
   - Are we all on the same page?
- Info models
   - Do we need to adopt them or can we just get on with the data models?
- Data models
   - Start to look at the details
- Applicability statements if there is time

Of course, you can use the mailing list and get ahead! In the next 6 weeks you
could do all of that work and we could drink beer during the meeting in Chicago
instead.

Thanks,
Adrian
per pro Linda