It looks good to me. No objections.
Regards,
as
On 6/30/13 6:11 PM, KK wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> Just a reminder, we'll be wrapping this up today.
>
> Thanks,
> KK
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM, KK <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> The chairs in conjunction with our AD, Joel, recently worked on a
> draft revision to our charter text. The changes in this revision
> are mostly related to elaborating on the type of documents this WG
> produces along with some minor wordsmithing here and there.
>
> We would like to get you to review the text and provide comments.
> Please have a read and voice an opinion one way or the other. If
> we don't hear any objections by June 30th, we'll assume you love
> it and proceed.
>
> Thanks,
> KK, Gunter, Warren
>
> P.S. The current version of the charter can be found
> at http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/charter/
>
>
> **********
>
> Proposed Revised OPSEC Charter:
>
> """
>
> Goals:
>
>
> The OPSEC WG will document operational issues and best current
> practices with regard to network security. In particular, efforts
> will be made to clarify the rationale supporting current
> operational practice, address gaps in currently understood best
> practices for forwarding, control plane, and management plane
> security and clarify liabilities inherent in security practices
> where they exist.
>
>
> Scope:
>
>
> The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection
> and secure operation of the forwarding, control and management
> planes. Documentation of operational issues, revision of existing
> operational
>
> security practices documents and proposals for new approaches to
> operational challenges related to network security are in scope.
>
>
> Method:
>
>
> It is expected that the product of the working group will result
> in the publication of informational or BCP RFCs. Taxonomy or
> problem statement documents may provide a basis for such documents.
>
>
> Informational or Best Current Practices Document
>
>
> For each topic addressed, a document that attempts to capture
> common practices related to secure network operation will be
> produced. This will be primarily based on operational experience.
> A document might convey:
>
>
> * a threat or threats to be addressed
>
> * current practices for addressing the threat
>
> * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing
> that are used to address the threat
>
> * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing
> tools or technologies
>
>
> Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents
>
>
> A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular
> operational security challenge or problem space without
> necessarily coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a
> document might
>
> be a precursor to an informational or best current practices document.
>
>
> While the principal input of the working group is operational
> experience and needs, the output should be directed towards
> providing guidance to the operators community, other working
> groups that develop
>
> protocols or the community of protocol developers at large and
> implementers of these protocols.
>
>
> Non-Goals:
>
>
> The OPSEC WG is not the place to do new protocols. New protocol
> work should be addressed in a working group chartered in the
> appropriate area or as individual submissions. The OPSEC WG may
> take on documents related to the practices of using such work.
>
>
> """
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
