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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 8:22 PM +0200 10/17/06, Eliot Lear wrote:
> would think that five or six values are appropriate:
>
>  1. Vendor name (string)
>  2. Vendor engine version (integer)
>  3. Vendor virus definitions version (integer)
>  4. Enabled? (binary)
>  5. Buggered? (binary)
>  6. Other gobbledigook the vendor wants to include that might get
>     standardized later. (blob)
>
>I could envision 3 being a bit of an issue if it is possible to update specific viruses but not others.

Thanks for this.  I was assuming we were talking primarily about a "1 and 3" combined
value.  As it stands now, you need access to the vendor's database to know what
viruses are covered by any specific version (your 3).  For the charter discussions,
I want to know whether it will be an aim of the working group to standardize:

* a way of carrying this information
* the structure of this information (but not its content)
* a standard representation of the content, so that access to the vendor database
   is no longer required

The tasks are substantially different in scope, and the level of interoperabilty
the community can expect from them are similarly different.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]