Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >For some costs, you just can't calculate it. One example, we >don't charge for FTP, simply there is no accurate way to try >to guess costs.
But you are guessing. You guessed zero. As I'm fond of saying, we might not know what the correct answer is, but zero is surely the wrong answer. I'm not necessarily opposed to FTP, but it is significantly overused. It comes with some major downside costs, such as: 1. Security context is lost, making information governance (and privacy protection) quite a bit more difficult; 2. It tends to get overused for application integration purposes, automatically resulting in batch interactions even between two "online" applications. Sometimes batch interactions are fine, but sometimes they are quite undesirable from a business point of view. I'll reiterate that it really is quite difficult to do chargebacks well, and perhaps you've proved my assertion. :-) But how do you charge for greater enterprise information security risks (#1)? What's that chargeback rate? That's a very interesting and rather tough question to answer, but "zero is the wrong answer." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
