Hi Russ, > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:19 AM > To: Narayanan, Vidya > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > > Vidya: > > >I'm not sure that the charter actually needs to get into the > modes at > >all - I'm guessing what happens after NEA (i.e., what is > done with the > >results from NEA) has zero impact on any work being done in > NEA itself. > >So, why not simply state something like "Once NEA is conducted on an > >endpoint, the results may be used by an organization in > accordance with > >any policies of the organization itself."? > > Discussions with the IAB and IESG prior to external review > lead to the addition of the modes discussion. The point is > that some networks will demand compliance to grant full > access, and other networks will simply notify that host that > they are not in compliance. A host my not want to change the > configuration to gain compliance. That is acceptable in the > second case, but not the first. >
I don't disagree with the above. But, I was mainly wondering what impact any of these decisions may have on NEA itself? Aren't these just post-NEA actions? In general though, I have far less problems with this text than I do with the idea of NEA somehow protecting networks or NEA being performed on endpoints that is not owned by the organization performing NEA. Regards, Vidya > Russ > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
