Re: [Panic] Scope Draft is Available

Panos,

Thank you for providing feedback on the PANIC scope draft.

Comments are inline below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:pkampana@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:37 AM
> To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire@nist.gov>; Panic@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scope Draft is Available
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> The document is clear.
> 
> One semantic objection I have is about the use of the word endpoint. I
> believe the term is commonly used for user machines (laptops, cells, tablets)
> . Network element or element is a little clearer.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am happy to go either way (e.g., endpoint, network element) if there is a preference in the group for one term or the other. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.

> A susggestion: The security section could mention the importance of not
> introducing security concerns with the posture info collection. For example a
> device should not be DoSable by too many polls, or it should not push often
> enough that would introduce performance concerns etc.

I think this is a good idea. Do you have some text in mind to drop in?

> I think it will also be beneficial to be explicit about the types of network
> elements. In the broad technologies that exist today, these elements could
> be hardware, software or virtual (NFV fails in this category). All of those
> should be in scope for this work.

All of these are in scope in my view.

> Side comment: I would like this standardization effort to try to reuse data
> formats and transports wherever possible and not come up with new
> posture information descriptions. I think this is a common goal that SACM has
> as well.

I share this goal as well. Should we document this in the draft?

> Thanks,
> Panos

Regards,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panic [mailto:panic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Waltermire, David
> A. (Fed)
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:03 AM
> To: Panic@ietf.org
> Subject: [Panic] Scope Draft is Available
> 
> Welcome to the posture assessment through network information collection
> (PANIC) email list. At the side meeting on March 29th, we started discussing
> the problem of how to measure the health of network devices. We
> discussed the need to collect posture information from network devices to
> support asset, software, vulnerability, and configuration management use
> cases. We were asked by the group to share a more detailed description of
> the intended scope for the PANIC effort. The follow draft is an attempt to do
> so:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-waltermire-panic-scope/
> 
> We would appreciate review of and comments on this draft. At this point, we
> want to know if the this scope clearly defines the problem to be solved.
> Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns, or if you think the
> scope draft is adequate.
> 
> Regards,
> David Waltermire
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Panic mailing list
> Panic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/panic