Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [Nsaas] Existing work, other things

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:32:59 +0000

Hi,

This may come a little bit late for the nsaas list, so I am using the new i2nsf as well...
On 11 Sep 2014, at 05:08 , Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 9/10/14 12:13 PM, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA wrote:
>> I fully agree with your statement of trying to narrow the scope and
>> identify the piece(s) of technical work to be solved. With that in
>> mind I suggested the three aspects to be considered, intended as a
>> first step to concrete the goals for a future group. For sure we need
>> to refine them but I can tell you that we are seriously considering
>> the provision of this kind of security services to our customers. So
>> I guess we can consider the request to bring our "product managers"
>> to the process fulfilled from our side...
>
> Well, yes and no.
>
> To back up a little bit, the IETF has not historically hewn to the
> problem statement->framework->whatever process.  Work used to be
> brought in more fully considered, and I think it does not represent
> progress that we're now seeing a lot of problem statements.  To me,
> it suggests that the work that's being proposed isn't really work
> per se - someone's got some ideas about an interesting problem but
> hasn't really worked out the details, whether the problem can (or
> should) be solved in the IETF at all, and so on.  It seems to me that
> from an organizational perspective, the problem statements have
> turned into an unproductive time sink.  Work really needs to be
> more mature before a BOF is approved.

I fully agree with you. As I said, we are engaged in a project that is already producing results in the direction of NSaaS/I2NSF (whatever we call it at the end) and I saw this proposal as an interesting opportunity to standardize some of them. The problem statement->framework->whatever process may have not been the IETF style to proceed (and I praise that!) but I am afraid that this is becoming commonplace, hence my statement above...

> On the other hand, people who are writing drafts and advocating
> for particular pieces of work should not be in a particular hurry
> to have a BOF.  It is not in the interest of people advocating a
> piece of work to have an unsuccessful BOF.  It hurts your case.
> Second, it's also important to keep in mind that the work of the
> IETF is done primarily on mailing lists and through the document
> process, not at meetings.  It's possible (and has been done a
> number of times) to form a working group without ever having held
> a BOF.

Agreed as well. In fact, I am under the impression that a group-forming BoF at IETF91 would be premature.

> This is not ETSI and it's not the ITU-T.  The best way to move
> work along is to have a technically credible proposal that's
> reasonably mature, and to have some people who want to build it
> and some other people who want to deploy it.  Support from other
> people who write standards is shallow if there's no institutional
> commitment to the technology on the parts of their employers.

Not sure about the ITU-T, but to be fair to ETSI I must say that their flexibility when it came to NFV was more than remarkable...

Be goode,

--
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição