Whether a company manageing a network demands that all hosts meet a
specific policy is a local policy issue and the charter specifically
addresses this concern:
"An organization may make a range of policy decisions based on the
posture of an endpoint. NEA is not intended to be prescriptive in
this regard. "
what the WG charter says and how the WG output is used are different
things. IMHO we need to consider the potential unintended consequences
of our efforts in IETF, not just what we intend. network operators do
not limit their use of technology to what we write in applicability
statements.
I think the intent of the working group is to standardize the data
formats and protocols so that NEA components can talk together, not to
say what to do with non-compliant hosts. That is a local policy
decsion. But to get to that decision, the components first have to
communicate.
At a very high level, this isn't much different than RADIUS, which
defines the data formats and protocols between a network access device
such as modem pool and the RADIUS server.
I don't think it's a good analogy because modem pools are very
special-purpose devices, whereas a host can potentially do anything that
needs to communicate with something else. For that matter, RADIUS
doesn't have the intent of preventing some kinds of modem pools from
connecting to the network.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf