> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:28 AM > To: Susan Thomson (sethomso) > Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; nea@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint > Assessment (nea) > > >>>>> "Susan" == Susan Thomson (sethomso) <sethomso@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Susan> Hi Vidya Inline ... > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Narayanan, Vidya > >> [mailto:vidyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 > >> 2:15 AM To: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc: nea@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: RE: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint > >> Assessment (nea) > >> > >> All, > >> > >> This charter is definitely clearer on some of the points that > >> were discussed based on the last version, but a couple of > >> things still remain to be clarified. Based on several > >> discussions that we've had lately, I have two suggestions for > >> further clarity: > >> > >> 1. Let's add the text suggested by Harald and Lakshminath > >> (there seemed to be agreement on this text on the > >> list). Quoting the change proposed: > >> > >> Replace: > >> > >> "NEA can be limited in its applicability when the endpoint and > >> the organization providing network access are owned by > >> different parties." > >> > >> with > >> > >> "NEA is applicable to computing environments of enterprises > >> where endpoints accessing the enterprise's network are owned > >> and/or expected to conform to the policies set forth by the > >> organization that owns and operates the network. All other > >> cases are outside the scope of the NEA charter, since we do not > >> know that NEA would be useful in such cases." > >> > > Susan> I don't think there is consensus around this text, and I > Susan> can think of existing deployment scenarios that might be > Susan> ruled out by this text and also where it might be > Susan> considered to be too broad. > > Ah. Count me as one in favor of the text (although I do not > object to the old text). I didn't speak up because I thought > there was consensus. > I thought so as well. There were a few who explicitly agreed and I saw no disagreements on the list. Vidya _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf