* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

I2nsf Status Pages

Interface to Network Security Functions (Active WG)
Sec Area: Eric Rescorla, Kathleen Moriarty | 2015-Sep-18 —  

IETF-99 i2nsf minutes

Session 2017-07-18 1330-1530: Athens/Barcelona - Audio stream - i2nsf chatroom


minutes-99-i2nsf-01 minutes

          Interface to Network Service Functions (I2NSF) Working Group
          IETF-99, Prague
          Tuesday July 18, 2017
          13:30 - 15:30 (two hours)
          Room: Athens/Barcelona
            Linda Dunbar      linda.dunbar@huawei.com
            Adrian Farrel     adrian@olddog.co.uk
            Kathleen Moriarty kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
          Scribes: Susan Hares, Frank Xia.  
          --- Administrivia - Chairs
                      - Working Group status and progress on milestones
          Thank you for coming to the I2NSF.  If I am replaced, this will be my
          last IETF. 
          Congratulations to the 1st RFC being published: RFC8192 -- problem
          statement and use cases.
          One finished WGLG, others are in the process of WGLG
          We are asking if client facing requirement draft is ready for WG LC
          [draft-ietf-i2nsf-client facing-interface-req.] 
          A design meeting was held this morning to discuss how to align the
          information model and data model drafts, it has been very helpful!
          Diego Lopez: We have a place holder in the capability model.  You will
          need to add the Support for these other models.  All of the models should
          be based on the capabilities model. 
          Sue Hares: You are correct! 
                    --- IETF 99 I2NSF Hackathon Report
                      - Presenter: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
           Linda: The I2NSF Hackathon team won an award for their work. 
           Frank: Paul will you do additional hackathons? 
           Paul: Yes. We have implemented the monitoring data model.  We hope
          to demo this model and to have additional features at the IETF 100
           Linda: We found that the Linux foundation recently launched a Security
          Controller Project. The goal is to enable user manage end to end
          security policies for traffic among their workloads hosted in various
          Data Center.  We reached out to them last week, they agreed to align the
          North Bound Interface and South Bound Interface to data models specified
          by I2NSF. As of now, they don’t yet have much to present other than the
          general objective of controlling bunch of security functions to have
          consistent E2E policies. So removed from the agenda. 
           Kathleen: Linda are you the liaison for this work? 
           Linda: Yes. 
           Kathleen: It is never too early to be in touch with this group. 
           Diego: We tried to have encourage the Linux team to come and see the
          running code. They can start with this running code. 
           (scribe may have missed more). 
           Linda: We can discuss it offline. Perhaps you can provide some ideas
          for this team. 
                    --- I2NSF Capability Informational Model [10 mins: 20/120]
                      - draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability
                        - Presenter: Frank Xia
           [see the slides. ] 
           Discussion: none
           Adrian: We are running significantly behind time. If everyone would
          save 20% of their time, we will not have to cut some one off the end of
          the agenda. 
                    --- I2NSF Applicability (to fulfill the milestone) [10 mins:
                      - draft-jeong-i2nsf-applicability-00
                        - Presenter: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
          Paul: We wish to have this as a WG draft.
          Discussion: Any questions? 
                    --- NSF Facing Interface Information/Data Model [40 mins:
                      - draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04 [5 mins]
                        - Presenter: Henk Birkholz
          Sue: In routing area, it's a challenge to category event, it's happy to
          see it happens in security area.
                      - draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03 [5 mins]
                        - Presenter: Sue Hares
           Adrian: SFC work should have discussion with SFC WG
           Sue: already talked with Joel, will proceed
           Kathleen: 2 suggestions: 
               Need to solve the overlapping problems among some of the
               drafts. Terminology is very important, however, the current IESG
               might make it difficult to have an RFC on Terminologies. Maybe merge
               some mature terminologies with Framework draft to move forward.
               How to make it move forward more quickly, please figure it out;
              Happy to see the testbed network, suggest to have an easy way to
          visit the code        
                      - draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02 [10
                        - Presenter: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
                      - draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02
                        draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01 [10 mins]
                        - Presenter: Sangwon Hyun
           Diego: it's more about protocol process, not so much about information
          model and data model. 
              Second: I see the elements on the screen. You are talking about
          memory, load, and telemetry.  
                      It would be good to converge the telemetry data information.  
                      It would be good to experiment with the telemetry data.
                      - draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 [10 min]
                        - Presenter:  Gabriel Lopez
              Bob: This good work.  Inside the corporate it does not always work. 
                   We should have some caveat on the discussion in this work. 
              Gabriel: We have followed the RFC.  We want to try for the 
              Yoav: The problem I see with this model. The NSF can be located in
          a kiosk in some shopping mall with IP addresses assigned by an ISP.
          If you have the information only going from the controller to the NSF,
          it doesn't work. 
              This is not what you want. There should be a flow of topology from
              NSF to the controller so the controller can build the big picture. 
              Gabriel: Yes, this is true.  We are trying to provide end-to-end
          pictures to the code. 
              It needs this other information.  We are at this point testing the
          high level controller. 
              We have to assume that the NSF controller is aware of IP addresses
          of NSFs, maybe via some kind of registration process. (scribed missed
              We will try to improve the securing of the topology update (??).  
              Yoav: The controller need the information.  The question is from
          the NB interface or the SB interface. 
               Gabriel: We appreciate the discussion. We should continue this
              Valery: I am very much concerned how you provide the topology
          information (?) to the controller.  [missed].  You need to have security
          to secure the topology. 
              I do not think it is a good solution to secure IKE.
              Gabriel: Security controller made use of netconf in order to secure
          a challenge to  download a channel. 
              Adrian: You've made a really good point.  Could you repeat that
                  --- Client Facing Interface information/data [30 mins: 100/120]
                      - draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-02 [5 mins]
                        - Presenter: Nabil Bitar. 
                        [see slides]
          Sue: group and identity is useful, could you clarify more details?
          Nabil: decouple from the network layer information, only concerns service
          layer identity.  
          Defined the policy based on contacts.  
          Sue: Thank your the explanation. We will take further clarification to
          the list.  
                      - draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03 [10 mins]
                        - Presenter: Nabil Bitar
                  Nabil Bitar: This is an blueprint for the client-facing interface
          information model.
                  There are multi-tenancy, endpoint, threat prevention, telemetry,
          and security policy objects. 
                  The way to define the policy instance is to create policy
                  Diego: There is overlap between drafts on the telemetry. 
                  I was wondering whether it makes sense to the 100 requirements,
                  a focus on meta-data.  It looks more like an envelope to a
          general statement. 
                  My recommendation is that split what you have there and put it
          in requirements. 
                  Other parts needs to go data model.  
                  Part 2 - Your document on the capability model is
          complicated. There are data models
                  should provide some of this depth. 
                  Nabil Bitar: I think it is a generic model to working group. 
          In some requirements, 
                  WGs have only data models.  In other WGs, the informational
          model and data models exist. 
                  We see the requirements. 
                  Diego: I will have requirements, information model, and data
                  Adrian: You are agreeing with one another. 
                  Hank: Due to my discussion on my hackathon telemetry, perhaps
          we could
                  converge to the data model. 
                  Nabil: converging drafts on telemetry to one data model makes
                  The pub/sub makes sense. 
                      - draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-0 [5 mins]
                        - Presenter: Qiushi Lin
                    [slide content]: Summary of changes: provide a minimal set of
          objects and attribute. 
                    Discussion of additional policy objects. Draft provide an
          * For ECA model, do event and actions need? 
                 (see Slide  
                      - draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02 [10 mins]
                        - Presenter: Jaehoon Paul
                    --- Other Work : [20 min: 120/120]
                          Next steps with SUPA Information model, and work through
          model for next hackathon
              -- Henk Birkhold - Remote attestation 
              Discussion: 3 types of function.  The implementation had the TUDA
          Sync-protocol.  TUDA is based on hardware RoT. 
          * Why tUDA? is it not more cmoplex - remote attestation may be the
          simpliest approach.
          *  Environments that might benefits? IoT has no state, and needs
          state. Aggregation of state for ioT is key as well. 
          * Broadcast can be done via encrypted becon. 
          * Allows for incremental attestation? 
          * Without hardware, how will it work.  Virtual harwdware without trust.  
                      - draft-hyun-i2nsf-nsf-triggered-steering-03 [10 mins]
                        - Presenter: Sangwon Hyun
                      - I2NSF document relationship - Chairs [10 mins]

Generated from PyHt script /wg/i2nsf/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -