Re: [Model-t] [e-mail] list description

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 8/3/2019 10:47 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 03/08/2019 18:39, Bret Jordan wrote:
>> This is not jargon, this is the language that is used in this space.
> I agree that these kinds of information model based approaches
> are fairly widely used by those dealing with specific incidents
> and products/services that in some way deal with specific incidents.
>
> But it's less clear if or how those approaches apply at protocol
> design time, which is what's more relevant here. I think the
> applicability may be even less clear for protocols that are used
> in widely different contexts. It's also unclear (to me anyway)
> how or if privacy issues could be addressed with such approaches

Reading this thread, I think that we are missing a step. We cannot
define attacks without defining first the assets that need to be
protected. Different actors probably have different views on that, such as:

1) Continuous operation of the Internet

2) Continuous operation of a specific Internet provider

3) Continuous availability of an Internet Service

4) Continuous connectivity for a given user

5) Protection of databases used by services and enterprises

6) Protection of the personal data of users

Do we have agreement on what we are trying to protect?

-- Christian Huitema