Roman: I was imprecise.
You interpretation of the original charter is correct. The orchestration was with specific Yang models. Thanks for responding! Sue -----Original Message----- From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:51 AM To: Susan Hares; i2nsf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering Hi Sue! > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:27 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; i2nsf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering > > Roman: > > The orchestration in the original charter was seen as "Yang models". Publishing particular yang modules is definitely in scope. Respectfully, I don't read the charter to have a scope to support orchestration generically with any yang module. > I'm > glad to work the IP-SEC orchestration + Yang models where the work goes. Wonderful. Regards, Roman > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:r...@cert.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:20 AM > To: Susan Hares; i2nsf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering > > Hi! > > What's described below sounds like a great conversation to have. I don't > sufficiently understand the existing gaps of "IP-SEC model[s] us[ing] BGP" > to assess the volume or complexity of future work in that area. With an > understanding of that scope, where this work should be done could also occur. > > Where there is clarity from my perspective is that the current I2NSF charter > scope would not cover this kind of work. RFC9061 is a commendable body of > work. However, the flexibility I exercised to ensure that it didn't get orphaned > when I became the responsible AD of I2NSF does not expand the published WG > scope. If there is a desire to do more Yang modeling work for IPSec that would > take a re-charter or another WG. > > Regards, > Roman > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 8:46 AM > > To: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; i2nsf@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering > > > > Roman: > > > > Good question! By mistake, I responded to just you. > > > > Here's the difficulty. IP-SEC knowledge is key to the restructure. > > And > so is Yang > > models. My personal experience in trying to get the IP-SEC model used > > by > BGP > > model, is that there are differences between the implementation of > > IPSEC security boxes and routing box. For example, RFC8983 is a set > > of status messages for IPsec. > > > > Do all of these message work equivalently for IPsec boxes and routing > boxes? > > I know how routing uses these features in securing links, but I am not a > > security box expert. I am willing to be "cross-area" participant of > I2NSF > > to see that these definitions get thought through by both types of people. > > > > Either I2NSF in OPS/SEC, you need people for phrase 2 who are: > > yang-experts, security-experts, deployment experts. If you move this to > > OPS, will you get security experts? > > > > [Again - I am grateful to Paul and Tom Petch] > > > > Just giving you feedback from the trenches. > > > > Sue > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 6:54 AM > > To: Susan Hares; i2nsf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering > > > > Hi Sue! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 6:35 PM > > > To: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; i2nsf@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Comments on re-chartering > > > > > > Roman: > > > > > > Security has created very few Yang modules. Therefore, you do not > have > > > experience with the lengthy cycle for this work. Ask Rob Wilton about > > the > > > versioning efforts or ask Alvaro regarding the routing yang models. Or > > > look at the BGP model for complexity. > > > > ... > > > > > For example, I would like to get the I2NSF IP-SEC model adapted so > > > that we > > can > > > use it in the BGP model. This takes chatting with the folks in > > > I2NSF who > > are > > > experts. > > > > I've consulted with my peer-SEC ADs. If the community has interest to > more > > closely align this activity with the larger critical mass of work in > > Yang > modules > > in the IETF, we would be supportive of moving I2NSF to the OPS Area to > finish > > the remaining work or evolve it as appropriate. > > > > Regards, > > Roman > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I2nsf mailing list > > I2nsf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
