RE: Straw-man charter

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Budd, Fred wrote:

> Grrr...must remember to finish typing the complete thought out next time.
>
> The rest of the thought was that even with using Ross' reworded language, this still seems to imply that these categories of items will be given precedence in a recharter. Not sure that's accurate. A recharter may look at those items, it may expand the scope in other ways, or take an entirely different path.
>
> I don't have any issues with explictly excluding items that could be considered in scope, such as security devices and hosts (possibly a stretch, but host security could be interpreted as being important to the deployment and operation statement of the goal from an EMS/NMS view).  But the value of including items that are explictly out of scope, and may never be addressed, seems dubious.
>
> -Fred Budd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 	  Once these are done, it may be appropriate to broaden the scope (and
> 	  recharter) to address the operational security requirements of of:
>
> 	    * Wireless devices
> 	    * SOHO devices
> 	    * Security devices (firewalls, IDS, Authentication Servers)
> 	    * Hosts

I'm not sure I follow the logic above.  What would you leave in the
exclusion list and what would you exclude from the exclusion list ?


> 	    * Unmanaged devices
> 	FB> Unmanaged devices are already out of scope per the goal.  Wireless and SOHO may be implicitly out of scope if the operational environment exclusions are put in.

OK.  Out of the list.

Thanks,
---George Jones