Re: FW: opsec meeting description

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Now that I'm a security expert (humor attempt) due to the work that
I've done on NET-CONF and SBSM, I'll send you some comments. I will
not be in Seoul, which is too bad, because on a quick skim of the 
document, it looked interesting.

/david t. perkins

At 11:15 PM 2/19/2004 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>So the OPSEC document: draft-jones-opsec-03.txt
>did get quite a bit of feedback from various people
>on this list. In Seoul we will have a sort of
>panel review (do not know exact format yet).
>
>Does any of the MIB doctors want to participate.
>I surely hope so.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>From: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>
>To: agenda@ietf.org
>Subject: opsec
>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:19 -0500
>
>draft-jones-opsec, which has been proposed for BCP, is somewhat 
>controversial.  Some people claim that its focus is too narrow, or that 
>it mandates functionality that is not yet available.
>
>This meeting will consist of a focused discussion by a panel of 
>reviewers.  The issues to be considered include:
>
>        Should this document, or some successor, be published in
>        more or less its current form?
>
>        What status should the document have?
>
>        Is there a need for other, related documents, such as 
>        operational security requirements for enterprises?
>
>        What venue is best for developing this or related documents?
>        How do we get participation by operators of all sorts?
>
>
>                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message