Hi Alissa, On 12/10/2013 06:06 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > 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, Yeah, I think management isn't quite right but I've yet to see anything else that doesn't create holes big enough to drive a PRISM through;-) > 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. Can you give examples of what is "not required" to operate the network? Couldn't CALEA be so considered? And if so, wouldn't that make this BCP conflict badly with 2804? S > > 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 > > >