What is missing that would require a new AREA.
The security area is not appropriate?
If 'area' actually meant working group,
I wonder to what degrre the problem of 'digital evidence'
is already treated in the LTANS working group.
Eric Burger wrote:
The idea that time services are important and of interest sounds
reasonable to me. Given there has been no discussion on the list, I
would offer you write an informational draft referencing the various
protocols that could benefit from such consolidation. That may
generate interest, or, upon fully understanding the concept, may
generate enough explanation of why it is not a good idea. Either way,
I would like to see some discussion, post the availability of a
thought-out roadmap.
On May 17, 2008, at 1:26 PM, TS Glassey wrote:
Now that there are multiple time services WG's its becoming very
clear that
the driving processes for product IP transit systems which move time
is now
central to the IETF's operations.
It if for that reason that I am suggesting that all of the Time
Centric
Protocols be lumped together into a new Area specifically focused on
Digital
Evidence (DE).
The reasons are simple, the DE scope of operations is rapidly
becoming key
to many existing and emerging network use models, and its one which
needs to
be managed in cooperation with other WG's and Organizations to
insure proper
adoption of IETF workproducts.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
To verify the signature, see http://edelpki.edelweb.fr/
Cela vous permet de charger le certificat de l'autorité;
die Liste mit zurückgerufenen Zertifikaten finden Sie da auch.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf