Re: [Isms] ISMS solution seslection procedure

I prefer an evaluation team.

At 08:23 AM 9/23/2004, Juergen Quittek wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Welcome to the ISMS working group!
>
>We have a very ambitious schedule and need to start discussing how we want
>to achieve our goal in time.
>
>Our major objective is selecting a solution for integrating SNMP with a
>security infrastructure as described in the charter.  The charter also
>defines a submission deadline for solutions, but it does not specify the
>selection process.  This message is a first step towards an agreement on
>the selection process.
>
>Basically, we have to evaluate all submitted solutions and then select one.
>For the evaluation we need a list of evaluation criteria and evaluators.
>
>Wes already spent a lot of time on identifying criteria/requirements.
>We should start with his list and discuss it on a separate email thread.
>
>Concerning the evaluators it can be useful to have a look at other WGs.
>Similar selections were made in the SEAMOBY, IPFIX and MIDCOM
>WGs.  In the SEAMOBY WG the chairs evaluated proposed solutions,
>in the IPFIX and MIDCOM WGs an evaluations team performed this
>task.  Since SEAMOBY decision ended up in a disaster (shutting down the
>entire work item at the IETF) it might be a good idea to go the way
>of IPFIX and MIDCOM where the decisions went reasonably well.
>Of course we are free to go our own way and our experiences may be
>completely different from the ones made in SEAMOBY, IPFIX and MIDCOM.
>
>So, please give us your opinion on the evaluators.  Do you prefer
>  - the WG chairs
>  - an evaluation team
>  - others
>???
>
>The evaluators should prepare a written evaluation and give a recommendation.
>Preferably the evaluation and recommendation should be available as an
>Internet draft, see for example
>
> 
><http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-01.txt>
>  <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-03.txt>
> 
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-06.txt>.
>
>Ideally, a first version of this draft (containing the final list of
>evaluation criteria, but probably not yet any evaluation) would already
>be posted by the deadline for submitting solutions.
>
>Then we need to hurry to get to a recommendation in November.
>
>Please send any comment, suggestion, opinion on the selection procedure.
>And since little time is left, please send it rather soon than late.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ken and Juergen
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Isms mailing list
>Isms@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms