Subject: [sacm] Fwd: Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-architecture-05

From: "Waltermire, David A." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 05:55:59 +0000

I was re-reading the SACM Architecture ahead of the meeting later today and had the following comments:

Section 3.1.1:

In the text:

"However, it must support either one or more standard data models, or one or more standard protocols."

It's not clear if this means support for BOTH standard data models AND standard protocols is desired.

We should consider changing the "or" to an "and".

Section 3.1.2:

In the text:

"Whether it is a configuration verification system; a checklist verification system; or a system for detecting posture deviations, compliance or vulnerabilities"

The functional distinctions between these examples are not clear. It seems like most of these concepts may be functionally the same or very similar in nature.

Section 4:

In the text:

"Those interfaces are outside the scope of SACM."

IMHO, with regards to interface C, potentially adapting the referenced protocols to exchange SACM information and to integrate with control plane functions is within the scope of SACM.

Section 7:

In the text, under data stores:

"It should be understood that these repositories interface directly to a Provider or Consumer (and Guidance) but the interfaces used to interact between them is outside the scope of SACM (e.g. no interface arrows are shown in the architecture)."

Guidance such as configuration and policy information may be stored in and retrieved from a data store. This i/d text seems to be in conflict with the SACM charter, which includes the following work item:

"A standards-track document specifying a protocol and data format for retrieving configuration and policy information for driving data collection and analysis"

A single nit:

Section 3.1.1:

s/for the enabling for these unsolicited/for the enabling of these unsolicited/

Regards,
Dave