RE: FW: opsec meeting description

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Pls send the comments to opsec mailing list.
  opsec@ops.ietf.org
I am on that list, so I will see it too.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2004 0:59
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: opsec meeting description
> 
> 
> 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
>