Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

I cannot remember if I made this comment before but the I-D seems a bit weak when it comes to prior art.  I came across this issue over 30 years ago and recall a consultant advising a customer that while they had 100 PC their approach of sending out engineers to each installation was viable but when it went up to 1000 and on to 10,000 the costs would bankrupt the firm.   A lot of effort went into avoiding employee travel and that has grown ever more sophisticated.  Latterly much effort has been put into avoiding support calls, another major drain on resources.

And when this was applied to machines that deliver cash, not sure best term for them is (ATM? cashpoint? ..), then the level of security was very high.

It is a long time since I was involved in developing or deploying the technology but see it regularly as a user of PC, such as the upgrade of thousands of PC from Windows 7 to Windows 10 with zero visits or the configuring of PC with key pairs to support public network access or ...  So, much has been done on this topic in the PC arena and it seems to me that networking is a decade or two behind the times.

I have masses of material about the state-of-the-art in the 1990s but nothing current.

Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Sent: 09 February 2020 21:49
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Cc: opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

Dear OpsAWG,

As there has been no feedback, I have to assume that you think that
this document is **absolutely** perfect, and contains nothing unclear,
inaccurate or confusing. Franky, this surprises me - I'd thought that
the bit about the penguins was somewhat vague...

W
(Yes, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to try and get more review
and feedback :-))

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:41 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached stability.  There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this draft expressed in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately.
>
> This email serves as a two-week start of a WG LC for this document.  Please [re-]read this draft and comment on its content as well as whether or not you feel it’s ready.  WG LC will conclude on February 18, 2020.
>
> Authors and contributors, please reply on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any intellectual property attributed to this work.  Reply that either you are not aware of any such IP, or reply with the details of known IP while also making sure you complete any IPR disclosures in data tracker.
>
> Joe and Tianran

--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg