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

RE: OPSEC Working Group? Need people to do the work.

I like the idea of a framework doc which encompasses all of the work which will eventually be produced and broadens the scope to include devices which are not covered in the current soon-to-be informational RFC. It's also a good idea to first produce BCP versions for the material covered in the existing document.

I don't see the need to re-charter if the original charter specifically defines the work to be done in a clear sequential manner. I.e. state explicitly that the work for BCPs for the current informational rfc needs to be finished before work on other areas can be started.

Coming up with clear definitions for all the categories of devices that will eventually be covered should be part of the framework document.......I'm sure there'll be some controversy/discussion but hopefully those can be constrained to a reasonable level.

I don't feel it necessary to include host OS'es in the scope of this particular wg, which would mean devices like DNS servers, mail servers are NOT part of the scope. Is it fair to say that the scope will include networking devices which provide connectivity at the networking and link layer?

- merike



At 12:31 PM 5/26/2004, George Jones wrote: 
> > Perhaps a small, managable first target would be to produce a
> > framework that allows for larger scopes (e.g. hosts, soho...)  but
> > take as the first goal of the WG to simply produce BCP versions of the
> > same material covered in the current opsec draft (which is coming out
> > INFO as soon as rfc-editor gives it some cycles).  The material from
> > the current draft could be broken down into several smaller ones.
> > Once this has been hit, we can re-charter, using the same framework
> > scoped for different devices.
> >
> > Sound like a plan ?
>
> I'm good with this, thanks.
>
> Even if the scope of one document is restricted to NSPs, some further
> subdivision may still be necessary. As Donald's definitions show, there
> are different issues for core and edge boxes.


So perhaps along with (part of?) the framwork document is to
list potential targets....first round tackles only those
in the current draft to make it doable in a finite timeframe.

---George