Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Narayanan, Vidya wrote: Harald, This seems to be missing the point. I think there is a general sense that NEA could be helpful for some level of protection to complying endpoints in an enterprise scenario, which is exactly what you have described below. The disagreement seems to be on the topics

RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Vidya Narayanan wrote: > I am very apprehensive of achieving any meaningful PA-level > interoperability. I am not sure what minimum set of PA attributes will > be standardized, but, whatever that set is, I doubt will be sufficient > to provide any acceptable level of security, even for the endpoint

RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Sam Hartman wrote: > One of the things coming out of the most recent BOF was a > strong desire for PA-level interoperability. That can be > accomplished through standardized attributes or > vendor-specific attributes that are sufficiently well > documented (and not subject to patents) that thi

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

On Oct 12, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Darryl ((Dassa)) Lynch wrote: Am I mistaken or is NEA intended to be a compliance check before a node is allowed onto the network? It seems impractical to specify system requirements or expect a suitable examination be done realtime prior to obtaining access.

RE: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Harald, This seems to be missing the point. I think there is a general sense that NEA could be helpful for some level of protection to complying endpoints in an enterprise scenario, which is exactly what you have described below. The disagreement seems to be on the topics of what NEA does for the n

RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Sam, > -Original Message- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:43 PM > To: Frank Yeh Jr > Cc: Hardie, Ted; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > > > "Frank" == Frank Yeh <[EMA

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Julian Reschke wrote: > [snip] > Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consider to have > the protocol published somewhere else (remember there was a big > discussion about W3C vs IETF before this working group was formed?). > -1. At this point switching venues would be positivel

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Julian Reschke schrieb: ... Sounds good. Any pointers to what's going on there? A good security mechanism implemented both in Apache httpd and Mozilla clearly would be A Good Thing. ... Robert has a summary at . (should have looked at

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

Robert, thanks for following up even though the outcome was as expected. Robert Sayre schrieb: Atompub, Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard. Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consid

RE: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

This reply was inadvertently blind copied to the ietf mailing list. I meant to have it plain copied, but dropped it a line to low... -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: Gray, Eric --> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:04 PM --> To: 'Olaf M. Kolkman' --> Subject: RE: draft-kolkman-

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

Thanks to all that replied (and thanks to David for spawning a new subject header). Below are a few thoughts and replies to things people brought up. --- In a private communication somebody suggested that this draft is targeted to one or two specific individuals. That is not the case. -

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

--On Monday, 16 October, 2006 14:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement should be > >triggered only is someone shows symptoms of being a > >vexatious appellant. People who are entering their > >first appeals don't t

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Greetings, "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/13/2006 05:56:42 AM: > So then this is an attempt by Cisco and IBM and several others to > qualify a "SOX reporting and compliance tool" - get real. >   > Todd Glassey I'm not sure I follow how you can infer that post-admission status

Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

Title: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... Todd Those are not exactly the facts.  The two notes I wrote and posted on the ABA InfoSec list yesterday (10/12-- a.m pdt) were both replies to "jeff williams" who was inquiring about the "property" status o

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

Brian E Carpenter wrote: Michael Thomas wrote: Can an appeal be rejected with merit? Sandy gave you the caricature response... Well, if I wanted to give a technical example that was clear to all readers, I had to pick a technology that all readers were familiar with, right? You use the t

call for documentation of legacy EAP methods

This is a call for vendors and authors of existing, deployed EAP methods to document their protocols. The IESG, the RFC Editor, and a number of volunteer reviewers want to help this process and make it as smooth as possible. Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP -- RFC 3748) is used for network

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Eliot Lear wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: I don't agree that this is low-hanging fruit. The server component of this system seems like a wonderful new target for DDoS and masquerade attacks. Well, first of all I don't see why this is any different than a radius server. In fact it could be that the

event calendar

When clicking on http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html one gets the event calendar that was posted a while ago. But within a few seconds the page refreshes and one is sent to http://geneva.isoc.org/events/, which is a quite different, and much more limited list.   I understand that t

Re: Please stop the country-specific references

But if you mean that IETF "non-members" should stay away from important policy-related things like the dispute resolution process or Certainly not; that's part of the standards process, which is explicitly excluded from IASA scope. the very nature of the IETF (incorporated or not, in a count

Re: Please stop the country-specific references (Was: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:00:17PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 9 lines which said: > I'd like to observe that the IASA was created so that the IETF as a > whole wouldn't need to bother about these administrative matters. I am not sure I understand. If you me

Re: draft-kolkman-appeal-support

John C Klensin wrote: ... > Eliot, > > It seems to me that, if there is a "right track" here --and that > is not obvious to me-- that you are on it or at least on a > parallel one. I suggest that implies several changes to the > draft, YMMD: > >(1) The "supporter" procedure/requirement shoul

Re: Please stop the country-specific references (Was: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

I'd like to observe that the IASA was created so that the IETF as a whole wouldn't need to bother about these administrative matters. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

At 01:46 AM 10/16/2006, Leif Johansson wrote: Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> >> Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops, >> but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like >> spamming, DDOS-attacks and th

Please stop the country-specific references (Was: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:08:42PM -0700, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 34 lines which said: > Further most people who participate in non-profits do not fit the > legal definition of "member". In the world of non-profits, that > term has very specific meaning and carries

Re: [Nea] Re: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Extreme clipping below: > v) IDS/IPS to detect and prevent intrusions > > NEA might help here by providing a common semantics for communicating the result of IDS scans of hosts to policy decision points. Cheers Leif ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@i

Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> >> Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops, >> but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like >> spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love to have the >> ability