>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. While I do agree that the *problem* being described is compelling, that does not imply that the architecture being described represents a workable solution to that problem. The solutions that customers are currently deploying tend to be considerably simpler and more general than the NEA architecture. For example, few of these solutions rely on EAP, or require forklift upgrades of routers or switches. Few involve elaborate "posture conversations" on each network access. Instead, the solutions that are being deloyed tend to be based on "appliances" that are compatible with any operating system or network infrastructure and have negligible impact on the performance of non-infected hosts. They are therefore easy to deploy and inexpensive to operate. With NEA as with any other Internet technology, performance and ease of deployment matter. Some food for thought: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=8349 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf