IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology] Should we remove the term "Asset Management"? (#84)

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Thu, 07 June 2018 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.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 BC0B4131181 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 HuRS2n5RZkbv for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 335C0130FF9 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:23:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1528413811; bh=SuuL30A4R+5m3YgVzbLqwrTaEo7rweBKQ+l1N3xjuc8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aKBQdsdK0G6fN44b5bjLTtnD7v9J7rf35O5COjQfLELA3+JGPhULFR2Xy0qzuaPRq 9tkTMs0S5v9HPXaMqV39tAId8ong0fvPQgccz8q2M4LjE9oCl1mLyodF4ruvKvFyh/ kPhreRE3xnqLvJs6Jq/+NXcAMXIK4Aw+2NqU4Thg=
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology <reply+00a6c4d1ab942e5aa62073f5a0c8459daf21c1a7d4bb17dc92cf000000011731807392a169ce11580af2@reply.github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology <draft-ietf-sacm-terminology@noreply.github.com>
Cc: sacm <sacm@ietf.org>, Comment <comment@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/84/395596456@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/84@github.com>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/84@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b19be737ab0a_2d772afaddae6f5c24356d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: henkbirkholz
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: comment
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: sacm@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/bJhCakFfKUHCkItfi8J6qcB-a2M>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology] Should we remove the term "Asset Management"? (#84)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 23:23:35 -0000

Asset just seems to be a tad bit broad. Our focus is Enterprise scope and PANIC automation. Alternatively, we could retain the term IT-Asset or Information-Asset (although that refers to a paper office, also. So I am not sure, we want to do that).

I agree with Jarrett. A convincing usage-scenario (or even just a user story) that highlights why this term is vital, would be a good way to argue for retaining it.

I hope it is okay to limit a submission of such an input to one day before the beginning of the next moratorium (2018-07-01(Sunday)).

-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/84#issuecomment-395596456

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email