Re: [perpass] comments and questions for the group on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02

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

 



On 12/10/13 5:45 AM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>FWIW, I was never particularly fond of the text that talked about network
>management and monitoring. I could probably personally live with a
>broader statement only that said something like "where technically
>feasible and can provide improved security in practical deployments".
>YMMV.

Perhaps "management" is a misnomer for the fundamental concern, which is
the ability to operate the network. The text that discusses management
could be made more accurate by instead discussing operation, e.g.:

OLD:
More limited-scope monitoring to assist with network management that
   is required in order to operate the network or an application is not
considered pervasive monitoring.

NEW:
More limited-scope monitoring that
   is required in order to operate the network or an application is not
   considered pervasive monitoring.

OLD:
Making networks unmanageable in order to mitigate
   pervasive monitoring would not be an acceptable outcome.


NEW:
Making networks inoperable in order to mitigate
   pervasive monitoring would not be an acceptable outcome.


(Realizing that now is not the time to wordsmith, but just offering
examples that might address the concerns raised earlier in the thread by
Eliot and others.)

Alissa






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