IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-ecp

Adam Montville <adam.w.montville@gmail.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3D312DA00; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9RtIeriQM-O; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C83DB12D72F; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id s9so22771789qke.12; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=z4S+1yY7UojL5dU3I9EKgOnFYYDE4RhmI+0/5Sqq2Ms=; b=M10mx/30VLvemDPqB1ZQSwrg0MbjlTahTLcB3sdOVWjqAIyZMJOAic1gkffG3dPbDL pqUvqMDz34jAvu124pY9KeqcBbG2moR396qtAStamLMcoUojKW4VPmDHUBuDO8guj/7a 6z0oYOZF/YCDaNPjycj1p0Mw9qiAjp5LOkwFOnPdIM8kD3B7pkoDIKVfbUhjPyLoOV6e eDSeYUKCsrCl//eMUfpjqJsREUD+94w/5WPbUAFJXpwFQKJGAPFwac8iJh4LnhNap58U uyouJ1MBHtYvJjY954uMwkSwvR4tI5F/BdkEdZIxSYMzB6dybgfEfSrvGfL3tOwV5KDJ qqPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=z4S+1yY7UojL5dU3I9EKgOnFYYDE4RhmI+0/5Sqq2Ms=; b=bRF4FovK2j3U+Qcd1tvIXaZeneZXLkFy7oNqJ39WDo59Sr0CF5ZWqXL5Y32QPF+Y9M HCx2kiOIYGEnfEhJ8/w7nbgUM5kl8T1CaCAnSNVkJLC9cCPsPFuEl1vbtWPP8FOMIVO6 21d7JhFLBsl3+wyxnD+ySkgfo+rxJuVjILpZzAtuuOITuGKmpfJwgLW0JP5M1qW5Qeoo QtIpodzPAM+Jud7YVVSPMx/djwskNWRUWoJevq9o8+9sbiGsoFNs/oPfatrAcdzJJiVN xSj4H0pGkV0rVDsFjjPxIrW10hSyZQoZBBV9jHa98MsthqgFsKBJc6w49Wpy8bJvTbWS eo2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBS1TfYZz1ko8CrhK6zHQXRofRYT1kVv//kg9N3t/8OQtjjiNJR jtKDYxT1Nt63L3scujAucKA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/CrzHyFTldQwrRVAlx9rJPqoR76GjZ+Uh5Czx5J4GmdhBpx805m8q55i2JEH24hrB+gp9k4g==
X-Received: by 10.55.246.26 with SMTP id y26mr24758634qkj.127.1522854143757; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-3.lan (99-64-100-131.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net. [99.64.100.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n58sm4593383qta.34.2018.04.04.08.02.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Montville <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E9F0DAAC-F227-4CEA-8784-AEA187879398@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F2B4E1E9-6AF6-4E66-BD68-7EF1A055C481"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:02:21 -0500
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR0901MB2197CC362C2CAC788F806367A5A40@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-sacm-ecp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sacm-ecp@ietf.org>, "<sacm@ietf.org>" <sacm@ietf.org>
To: "Haynes Jr., Dan" <dhaynes@mitre.org>
References: <A9A78B93-981C-4857-AC35-CD38055DA55B@gmail.com> <DM5PR0901MB219737E3075D0C2C84E916D3A5A50@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <AAC84E16-2518-45C7-9F5A-6092712526D6@gmail.com> <DM5PR0901MB2197CC362C2CAC788F806367A5A40@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/0csaQ6yqfDBzoamyb30K3Rdzmu4>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-ecp
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:02:27 -0000


> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> I think the ECP draft is less about compliance and more about collection, and it's specifically about agent-based (or in-built) collection capabilities based on NEA and extensions thereto - in other words, ECP begins to specify a collection infrastructure for agent-based collection (sorry if I'm slow). In this way, the draft adds value to SACM, and leaves room for alternative approaches that may not be agent-based. If a tight scope statement could be created along these lines, I think that would go a long way toward clarifying the draft. 
>  
> [danny] Do you want to take a pass at that statement :)? Also, where are you thinking it would go? In the introduction?
>  
> :-) Dude. (Yeah, I'll give it a shot.) The big important question: Do I get authorship benes? ;-)
> 
> [danny] Not sure, I have no idea what the requirements are for that :).

Of course, I was (mostly) joking.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email