Subject: [Anima] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:17:09 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-anima-00-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do think this could be very useful work if the scope is clear and the
objectives can be met.  The current charter reads as if it is quite broad
to me.

I agree with Pete that there are some things in the charter that are not
quite clear enough.  When a security model is mentioned, I'm guessing it
means narrowly scoped for whatever is defined.   Could you elaborate on
what is intended?

The SACM WG and I2NSF (just a mailing list at this point) may have some
overlap with the security portion or maybe not depending on what was
intended.  It may be helpful to make sure there is some relationship
(folks from each paying attention).

Thanks.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:55:33 +1300

Kathleen,

On 02/10/2014 12:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
...
> objectives can be met.  The current charter reads as if it is quite broad

The topic is potentially very broad but the charter is supposed to
narrow down the deliverables to things we hope are finite and feasible.
As other ADs have noticed, there is quite a lot of background material
in the charter, added during several weeks of discussion.

> means narrowly scoped for whatever is defined.   Could you elaborate on

Well, it will of course be described in the appropriate drafts.
In fact it is described in several of the existing drafts, but that
is all subject to change by the WG of course. Are you saying we should
be more specific in the charter?

> (folks from each paying attention).

Certainly, when the time comes. I'm personally thinking that one of the
first things the future WG chairs should do is ask for a security
advisor, precisely because of the risks of overlap.

Rgds,
   Brian

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 20:21:26 -0400

Thanks for the quick response, Brian.

> in the charter, added during several weeks of discussion.

Yes, thanks for your work on the charter.

> be more specific in the charter?

An email response would be great.  What I am asking is just to understand
what you mean by the goal, "a common security model".  The two groups I
pointed out are specific to security models WRT assessing systems, one for
configurations and the other is still shaping up, but policy is the focus.
I was more checking that the security model was around the automation
defined in the scope of work and not replicating the policy automation that
might be done elsewhere - or that we are sure they are coordinated.  I
tried to ask the question in a leading way to see if my assumption was
correct, maybe I wasn't clear enough.  Thanks.

> Great, thanks.  I'd hope that there would be several people interested
since there may be obvious connections between the efforts.

Rgds,

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:45:09 +1300

in line...

> correct, maybe I wasn't clear enough.  Thanks.

Yes. The security discussions are about securing the autonomic control
plane and the protocol(s) used for commuucation between autonomic agents.
There's also a general assumption that the devices involved will need
secure identities.

otoh if we succeed, there is no reason that security properties could not
be negotiated autonomically in future. However, that seems too far ahead
to be a current concern.

    Brian

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:14:33 +0200

> since there may be obvious connections between the efforts.
That's a good idea.

Regards, Benoit