ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

2006-10-24 10:44:51
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:28 AM
To: Susan Thomson (sethomso)
Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint 
Assessment (nea)

"Susan" == Susan Thomson (sethomso) <sethomso(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
writes:

    Susan> Hi Vidya Inline ...

    >> -----Original Message----- From: Narayanan, Vidya
    >> [mailto:vidyan(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
    >> 2:15 AM To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Cc: 
nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
    >> Subject: RE: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint
    >> Assessment (nea)
    >> 
    >> All,
    >> 
    >> This charter is definitely clearer on some of the points that
    >> were discussed based on the last version, but a couple of
    >> things still remain to be clarified. Based on several
    >> discussions that we've had lately, I have two suggestions for
    >> further clarity:
    >> 
    >> 1. Let's add the text suggested by Harald and Lakshminath
    >> (there seemed to be agreement on this text on the
    >> list). Quoting the change proposed:
    >> 
    >> Replace:
    >> 
    >> "NEA can be limited in its applicability when the endpoint and
    >> the organization providing network access are owned by
    >> different parties."
    >> 
    >> with
    >> 
    >> "NEA is applicable to computing environments of enterprises
    >> where endpoints accessing the enterprise's network are owned
    >> and/or expected to conform to the policies set forth by the
    >> organization that owns and operates the network.  All other
    >> cases are outside the scope of the NEA charter, since we do not
    >> know that NEA would be useful in such cases."
    >> 

    Susan> I don't think there is consensus around this text, and I
    Susan> can think of existing deployment scenarios that might be
    Susan> ruled out by this text and also where it might be
    Susan> considered to be too broad. 

Ah.  Count me as one in favor of the text (although I do not 
object to the old text).  I didn't speak up because I thought 
there was consensus.


I thought so as well. There were a few who explicitly agreed and I saw
no disagreements on the list. 

Vidya

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf