Re: [sacm] ECP Architecture Diagram Feedback

That helps, Danny, but then my comment about the ECP draft would change. As I read it, I do not take some of those components as being in scope (maybe some requirements for a cooperating component, but not - strictly speaking - in scope for ECP). If components such as the orchestrator and the repository are to be taken as in scope, it feels like that could be made more explicit.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way?

Adam

> On Apr 3, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Adam,
>  
> I hope it was a good trip out there and that you were able to see some of the sights!
>  
> As far as scoping and the diagram, I think it’s worth nothing that all the components in it are in scope for ECP. It is just a matter of when we actually get to creating drafts for them (if that makes any sense). I think what you are looking for is a diagram that shows what we are currently working on? Or, maybe I am misunderstanding your comments?
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Danny   
>  
> From: Adam Montville [mailto:adam.w.montville@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 3:33 PM
> To: Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org>
> Cc: sacm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sacm] ECP Architecture Diagram Feedback
>  
> Hi Danny,
>  
> We missed you in London. I think the diagram is ok, but I do have scoping questions (just sent to the list) which may suggest some modification to the diagram once resolved. If the way I'm interpreting the ECP draft at this point is close to accurate, then it might be a good idea to add a horizontal scoping line between the left hand and the right hand of the diagram, where the posture manager is the first component on the right-hand side. Alternatively, an in-scope boundary box could be drawn around the appropriate components.
>  
> What really matters is whether the diagram accurately depicts the intended scope of the draft from the authors' perspectives, and whether a typical reader would see it that way.
>  
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org <mailto:dhaynes@mitre.org>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> At IETF 101, we presented an updated architecture diagram [1] that was based on feedback from the September virtual interim [2][3] and was included in the ECP -01 draft [4]. During the meeting, we did not receive any feedback on the architecture diagram.
>  
> As a result, we just wanted to follow-up on the list and see if there was any feedback or objections to the updated ECP architecture diagram that was proposed.
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Danny
>  
>  
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-sacm-endpoint-compliance-profile-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-sacm-endpoint-compliance-profile-00> (see slide 4)
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-interim-2017-sacm-03-sessa-ecp/00/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-interim-2017-sacm-03-sessa-ecp/00/> (see slide 5)
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-sacm-03/materials/minutes-interim-2017-sacm-03-201709260900-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-sacm-03/materials/minutes-interim-2017-sacm-03-201709260900-00> (see page 1 and 2)
> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-ecp/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-ecp/>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>