Subject: [Nea] architectural use cases/system flow diagrams

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:46:56 -0700

Hi All

One of the action items that John Vollbrecht and myself took at the NEA
meeting at IETF was to brainstorm on some of the generic architectural
use cases or system flows (without any specific existing
framework/implementation in mind) and send it out to the list for
discussion. Here it is.

We would appreciate comments and a lively discussion on this. Its not
clear at the moment which draft these diagrams should belong to, for now
we want to get some feedback and this will help with some of the
Requirements definition as well.

Thanks

Hormuzd

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

---

From: "Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:56:53 -0700

Homuzd, John,
 
>From these docs it looks like we're re-inventing the wheel again.  Has
any consideration been made on pulling in use cases from the TNC side of
things?  Perhaps to also consider from the CNAC team.
 
To me it seems we're defining a new architecture all over again rather
than pulling in what already exists and evaluating is leveragability.
 
MS

________________________________

	From: Khosravi, Hormuzd M [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:47 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Nea] architectural use cases/system flow diagrams

	Hi All

	One of the action items that John Vollbrecht and myself took at
the NEA meeting at IETF was to brainstorm on some of the generic
architectural use cases or system flows (without any specific existing
framework/implementation in mind) and send it out to the list for
discussion. Here it is.

	We would appreciate comments and a lively discussion on this.
Its not clear at the moment which draft these diagrams should belong to,
for now we want to get some feedback and this will help with some of the
Requirements definition as well.

	Thanks

	Hormuzd

---

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:44:44 -0700

Hi Mauricio

The goal is to leverage existing architectures and make them
interoperate. One way to achieve that goal is to define Requirements
(System Flows in this particular case) without any particular
architecture in mind and then figure out how we can leverage existing
architectures to satisfy those requirements or scenarios.

Obviously, in some cases the existing architectures/implementations may
require some changes in order to meet the requirements or interoperate,
but we have to do that in order to achieve the ultimate goal of
interoperability.

So the next thing I would expect to be discussed in this context is how
TNC & NAC would fit in with these particular use cases and we go from
there.

Let me know if that sounds good, Also if you can provide a TNC example
to this list that would be great.

Thanks

Hormuzd

From: Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:57 PM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Nea] architectural use cases/system flow diagrams

Homuzd, John,

MS

	Hi All

	 

	Thanks

	Hormuzd

---

From: "Thomas Hardjono" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:18:29 -0700

Yes, we definitely don't want a 4th architecture out there (besides
CNAC, TNC and NAP). The Market and the analysts are already confused as
it is :)
 
My understanding from the BOF was that we had to write a requirements
document (not an architecture document).
 
We then had to decide on specific protocols or EAP-methods to get
interoperability across peer layers.
 
/thomas/

From: Khosravi, Hormuzd M [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:45 PM
To: Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Nea] architectural use cases/system flow diagrams

Hi Mauricio

Thanks

Hormuzd

Homuzd, John,

MS

	Hi All

	 

	Thanks

	Hormuzd