Re: Fwd: [Nea] Re: use of a design team to develop requirements

[Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> whether the search is illegal is irrelevant to this discussion.

  My point was that certain architectures of NEA are more likely to be
legal than others.  This knowledge should have *some* effect on the
design of the solution.  Why design something we know can't be deployed?

> you don't need Turing completeness to be extremely invasive.  for
> example, a way to ask "tell me what the value of octet X at offset Y in
> file Z" is sufficient to download the entire file system.

  Which is why *informative* protocols are much more robust than ones
that perform queries.

  What should be a major point in these discussions is that if the
network admin "owns" the end host, then he should be able to configure
it to send out the information needed when the machine connects to the
network.  Any querying protocol is overkill, and adds nothing.

  So long as the protocol involves remediation, then the end host can
connect to a remediation network, and download the latest rules about
what information needs to be sent to the network.  It then disconnects
from the remediation network, and reconnects to the normal network,
supplying the newly requested information.

  Alan DeKok.
--
  http://deployingradius.com       - The web site of the book
  http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog

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