Dean, I'm not going to argue this point by point with you, I simply provided data points on what folks who do this as part of their day job have observed and reported. You can choose to accept this, or not.
As for bots and C&Cs and what's done in practice today and what's not, well, I know a little about that, as well as many other folks here on the list. If you have pointers to any empirical or even anecdotal evidence I'd love to consider that in the future, but conjecture provides little value. >> No, there's quite a wide distribution of responses, but mostly >> *OG types in various regions. > > Ahh. Figured as much. Out of curiosity, who do you believe should respond to a security operations surveys - beyond those in security ops positions, that is? >>> Mr. McPherson is >>> associated with NANOG, attending 18 meeting as of NANOG 42; Only 46 >>> people have attended more NANOG meetings than Mr. McPherson. >> >> Interesting tidbit, I had no idea. Useless, but interesting :-) > > Useless to you perhaps. Not so useless to everyone. But its > interesting > that you aren't concerned by the association with the other improper > activities. I guess you know about those, so it comes as no surprise. I've been to twice as many IETF meetings, and here, just like there, I've learned over the years that there's cruft everywhere and the key is being able to apply appropriate filters based on one's personal experiences and opinions. -danny _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
