FWIW - I would be fine with wording changes on the lines of what Alissa is suggesting. Mentioning network operations rather than network management is more accurate actually in this case. What we usually call 'network management' is part of the toolset needed to operate networks. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:06 PM > To: Jari Arkko; Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear > Cc: IETF@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [perpass] comments and questions for the group on draft- > farrell-perpass-attack-02 > > 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 >