Noting the scenarios above, I claim that NEA-like functionality has proved useful already in protecting "the computing environment of an enterprise". I have not seen compelling evidence that it has any use in "the layer 3 infrastructure used to carry customer traffic at an ISP".
But I think that's beside the point - the use cases for which we know that NEA may be useful are already compelling enough that we should stop debating whether or not to charter the group and get on with the work.
My opinion.
I concur. I will also add that my concerns about this work being used outside it's domain of applicability (which as a practical matter we have little control over) pale in comparison to concerns about there being mulitple proprietary schemes for this sort of thing. The last thing we need to be doing is encouraging monocultures through the work we do (or don't) do. I also think this discussion is well over the line of charter debate and into the realm of protocol design. Let's finalize the charter (I thought the latest proposed text regarding scope looked fine) and do the protocol work in the WG. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf