Noting the scenarios above, I claim that NEA-like functionality has
proved useful already in protecting "the computing environment of an
enterprise". I have not seen compelling evidence that it has any use in
"the layer 3 infrastructure used to carry customer traffic at an ISP".
But I think that's beside the point - the use cases for which we know
that NEA may be useful are already compelling enough that we should stop
debating whether or not to charter the group and get on with the work.
My opinion.
I concur. I will also add that my concerns about this work being used outside
it's domain of applicability (which as a practical matter we have little
control over) pale in comparison to concerns about there being mulitple
proprietary schemes for this sort of thing. The last thing we need to be doing
is encouraging monocultures through the work we do (or don't) do.
I also think this discussion is well over the line of charter debate and into
the realm of protocol design. Let's finalize the charter (I thought the latest
proposed text regarding scope looked fine) and do the protocol work in the WG.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf