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

["Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan at qualcomm.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf at mit.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: Susan Thomson (sethomso)
> Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; nea at ietf.org; iesg at ietf.org; ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint 
> Assessment (nea)
> 
> >>>>> "Susan" == Susan Thomson (sethomso) <sethomso at cisco.com> writes:
> 
>     Susan> Hi Vidya Inline ...
> 
>     >> -----Original Message----- From: Narayanan, Vidya
>     >> [mailto:vidyan at qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
>     >> 2:15 AM To: iesg at ietf.org; ietf at ietf.org Cc: nea at ietf.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

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