RE: [Nea] NEA "problem statement" I-D submitted

["Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi at intel.com>]

Hi Susan

 

Yes I mean server broker & posture server. I agree that APIs don't fall within IETF standardization scope, however in this particular scenario, these entities are usually not co-located and protocols are used here. Therefore, I feel this should be something that is pursued by this working group, if we want to build interoperable solutions.

 

Thanks

Hormuzd

---

From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso at cisco.com]

I don’t completely agree with 6.3.5 and 7. I feel like some of the interfaces such as the one between the server broker and server plugins should not be out of scope of this WG…this is an important interface for end-to-end interoperability and should be left within the scope of standardization
[Susan] You refer to the interface between the "server broker and server plugin". Do you mean the interface between server broker and posture server, or something else?

 

I think there are two separate questions here: 1) whether these interfaces are candidates for standardization, and 2) whether the IETF is the place to do the standardization. For the purposes of this discussion, we are obviously interested in 2).  To the extent these interfaces are APIs, this likely does not fall within the IETF. To the extent the interfaces are protocols (and this is the case where posture server is not co-located), then this is a candidate for standardization, although this may still be pushing the boundaries of what the IETF has traditionally been involved in. This is something that needs to be discussed further.

 

 

Thanks

Susan

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea