Subject: [sacm] Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-architecture-00

From: "Adam W. Montville" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:30:13 -0500

Hi Nancy,

The following are comments I have about the architecture draft.  Again, holding nits until some later time after additional cleanup has been performed.

I’m not clear about what’s being mapped to the SACM Architecture in Section 3.  The reason, I think, is because the draft *is* the SACM Architecture, but then Section 3 seems to imply that what we’ve described is something more than the SACM Architecture when it says: “…the architectural components shown in Figure 1 can be further refined as…”.

I’m confident that we’ll find confused readers when the draft goes out for wider review in IESG, apps, etc., but most important, I think we’ll find confused readers for the draft’s consumers (no pun intended) - those who will read the draft in six months or a year and try to implement things.

How do others feel about this?

Adam

---

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:31:41 +0000

Hi Adam,

Thanks for that great feedback.  Admittedly, I think as an architecture,
we need to allow for other components that will want to generate and
consume posture information Š..but feedback was to try to incorporate some
of the text from the information model draft that included some workflows
for posture assessment.
Section 3 attempts to map the workflow called a ³Producer/Consumer Complex
Example² in Figure 5 of the joint info model draft as the sample map of
how a specific function e.g. ³collector², ³evaluator², etc can be mapped
to the general ³producer²/³consumer² architecture.

I understand the wording needs work, so I¹ll take a look at itŠbut please
feel free to make wording adjustments to make it more clearŠ.and I¹ll also
do same.

Thanks, Nancy

On 10/15/14, 7:30 AM, "Adam W. Montville" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Hi Nancy,
>
>The following are comments I have about the architecture draft.  Again,
>holding nits until some later time after additional cleanup has been
>performed.
>
>I¹m not clear about what¹s being mapped to the SACM Architecture in
>Section 3.  The reason, I think, is because the draft *is* the SACM
>Architecture, but then Section 3 seems to imply that what we¹ve described
>is something more than the SACM Architecture when it says: ³Šthe
>architectural components shown in Figure 1 can be further refined asŠ².
>
>I¹m confident that we¹ll find confused readers when the draft goes out
>for wider review in IESG, apps, etc., but most important, I think we¹ll
>find confused readers for the draft¹s consumers (no pun intended) - those
>who will read the draft in six months or a year and try to implement
>things.
>