[saag] Re: [EXT] Interests on Initiating the standardization work related to "Zero Trust"?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Clearing up marketing-tainted terminology is not a good use of the
    >> IETF.  At this point "Zero Trust" is largely unrecoverable.

    > A strong +1 to what Richard says. In fact, if you look at the early
    > drafts and slides from the proponents, they don't mean "zero", they
    > mean "very little": this is a giant red flag for IETF work.

Another +1.  (And if Richard and I agree...)
And I wish the same argument applied to "aipref"

    >> If there's some protocol work to do here, let's do it.  But from the
    >> documents posted up-thread, this seems like territory that is already
    >> well-covered by existing standards.

    > A different take would be: if there are industry trade associations or
    > other SDOs that want to take on this work, and the result of their work
    > is "but we need extensions to IETF standards to make this work", we
    > should cheerfully work with them on that. But we don't have to help
    > them with the wandering in the weeds.

Weeds?  That implies a fertile swamp!
My vision is more inspired by 40 years of wandering in a desert.
But, yes.  I'm all for extensions, and I find that many industry associations
are even shy about asking for that.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide