OTECTED]>
> To:
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:45 PM
> Subject: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
>
> I have a very basic fear that this working group is getting chartered
> with a bunch of aims added by people who will not t
You know Ted you crack me up.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Networ
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 02:39:46PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> So then Ted are you formally saying that it is inappropriate to discuss IETF
> operations or its processes on the IETF@IETF.ORG mailing list?
If you have a specific and actionable suggestion regarding IETF
direction, policy, meetings,
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:54:51P
t;
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> >
> > Ah two new terms of Art - "Posture" and "Devices".
>
> I only see one. I believe "device" is a fairly well-understood term,
> t
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:54:51PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> No you are wrong Ted, and its pretty funny too. As it happens you are
> incorrect for saying that this is inappropriate for the IETF's lists.
>
> You need to dig farther into the WIPO Site and find all the State Signatures
> to the T
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Posture checking is certainly a leaky bucket. It doesn't
>> protect all kinds of endpoint, it doesn't protect the
>> endpoints against all kinds of threats, and it doesn't
>> protect much of anything against a smart, resourceful
>> attacker who is deeply familiar with t
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:08:42AM -0700, todd glassey wrote
On Wednesday, October 04, 2006 02:31:36 PM -0700 todd glassey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vidya good commentary, maybe I can add some more. The NEA, per the
charter-need's justification statement says:
Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) architectures have been implemented
in the industry t
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:08:42AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> No it wasn't Brian - the WIPO IP Framework calls for a set of protections
> for Industrial Designs which ALL of the work that happens here is controlled
> by right? Otherwise, do you formally want to make a declaration as the
> IETF's
Hi Susan,
> -Original Message-
> From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 3:27 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:08:42AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> No it wasn't Brian - the WIPO IP Framework calls for a set of protections
> for Industrial Designs which ALL of the work that happens here is controlled
> by right?
I suppose you might consider ALL IETF work as protected or threatened
Hi Darrly,
> >>
> >> It appears that the NEA charter is completely misleading to some
> >> people from what is stated in this email. As the NEA
> charter alludes
> >> to, NEA does nothing to protect against compromised
> devices. Also, as
> >> has been agreed, NEA is not a protection mech
TECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> Tood,
>
>
>
> Agreed, we should work to fix that.
>
>
>
> Fritz.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "todd glassey"
IP Law and
can pretty much do anything they want.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> &
The IETF has an obligation to WIPO and to the DMCA
...
I can only assume this was intended as some form of joke.
regardless of intent, it should be treated as such.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i
Agreed, we should work to fix that.
...
The IETF has an obligation to WIPO and to the DMCA
...
I can only assume this was intended as some form of joke.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
>
> >>>This is what I meant when I said that the charter is unclear
> >>>and it must explicitly state that NEA is no
09, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
>
> >>>This is what I meant when I said that the charter is unclear
> >>>and it must explicitly state that NEA is not meant as a
> >>>protection mechanism of any sort for the n
This is what I meant when I said that the charter is unclear
and it must explicitly state that NEA is not meant as a
protection mechanism of any sort for the network.
I don't believe the Charter needs to delve into this at all. If some people
see it as part of their protection mechanisms, so
I have a very basic fear that this working group is getting chartered
with a bunch of aims added by people who will not take on the
task of doing the work. After private discussion with folks
involved, my sense is that the very core of this work is a perceived
need to be able to pass opaque strin
Hi Vidya
Inline ...
>
> How about adding this text - "It should be noted that the networks at
> large are exposed to attacks from lying endpoints and
> external entities
> attaching to the networks as well as any problems arising from unknown
> vulnerabilities on NEA compliant endpoints. Henc
etf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
>>>
>>>>> Third, I simply can't see what the organization's interests would be
in
>>>>> protecting a device that doesn't even belong to it.
>>>
>
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops,
but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like
spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love to have the
ability to run some
> -Original Message-
> From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:43 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand; Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoi
> -Original Message-
> From: Susmit Panjwani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:04 PM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessmen
It appears that there was consensus to form a NEA working group at
the last BoF meeting. Given that, I won't object to a WG being
formed, but the charter needs to be more tightly scoped. I have
asked for an applicability statement to be put on this work at the
IETF. I will try and provide dr
On Oct 7, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops,
but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like
spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love
At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops,
but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like
spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love to have the
ability to run some kind of NEA procedure to ens
Harald - get Microsoft to buy into this idea and its done.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 1:42 AM
The reason we left it open is to allow the working group to spend more
> time exploring the range of use cases in this area to better determine
> requirements and applicability. For example, it may be useful to
> classify endpoints as network-managed versus user-managed versus
> 3rd-party managed
ED]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:30 AM
> > > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
> > >
> > > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the S
> "Susan" == Susan Thomson (sethomso) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Susan> regard. For example, potential deployment scenarios may
Susan> include,but are not limited to, providing normal access
Drop the may include. You want to have at least one or two
deployments that you commit to so
Hi Vidya
Thanks for your comments.
Inline ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:48 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment
these ends, the NEA may use pieces of other services or
technologies in creating this Open Framework for operating integrity and its
evidentiary documentation."
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ;
Cc: <[
All,
Comments on the charter inline below.
> -Original Message-
> From: IESG Secretary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:30 AM
> To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (ne
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
