Re: [Nea] Charter language on compromised endpoints

["Sean Convery" <sconvery at gmail.com>]

Would it be appropriate to extend this wording to include some basic
statements that we, as a group, agree that there is value conferred on
the system even if some elements (the compromised ones) don't
accurately report their health? The wording as written seems to beg
the question, "Well why isn't it in scope?"

Thanks,

Sean

On 5/26/06, Khosravi, Hormuzd M <hormuzd.m.khosravi at intel.com> wrote:
> Looks good to me, Steve.
>
> We'll also add some text around this in the Requirements draft as you
> suggested.
>
> Thanks
> Hormuzd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hanna [mailto:shanna at juniper.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:35 PM
> To: nea at ietf.org
> Subject: [Nea] Charter language on compromised endpoints
>
> Since several people on the NEA list have asked to have
> the charter address the matter of compromised endpoints
> but nobody has suggested that this should be in scope
> for NEA (except that it will be addressed in the overall
> security analysis), I propose adding the following text
> to the current draft charter just before the milestones:
>
> -----
>
> One commonly discussed issue with NEA systems is how to
> handle compromised endpoints, whose reports of their own
> posture may not be accurate. This issue is out of scope
> for the NEA working group except in the security analysis
> section of the Requirements document.
>
> -----
>
> I invite comments on this proposal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea