RFC 8192: Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF): Problem Statement and Use Cases
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document sets out the problem statement for Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) and outlines some companion use cases.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8192
- Published
- July 2017
- Authors
- S. Hares; D. Lopez; M. Zarny; C. Jacquenet; R. Kumar; J. Jeong
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 29
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8176Authentication Method Reference ValuesCurrent
June 2017
- RFC 8221Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)Updated
October 2017
- RFC 8162Using Secure DNS to Associate Certificates with Domain Names for S/MIMECurrent
May 2017
- RFC 8229TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec PacketsObsoleted
August 2017
- RFC 8152CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)Obsoleted
July 2017
- RFC 8247Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)Updated
September 2017
- RFC 8248Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) RequirementsCurrent
September 2017
- RFC 8134Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) Implementation ReportCurrent
May 2017
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?