Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch] Substitute enterprise boundary with ecosystem boundary (#18)

adammontville <> Tue, 08 October 2019 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EC512008A for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D7Zn19T4vWSF for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C01120020 for <>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:01:47 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1570572107; bh=RNiBLiQWRNdShCGeCIq298wZIhQ8a0+0v1zhbRxmSE0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Zt6vKGuYkc8/tuuzk/dlTw/NnTUYpv9eFKSTSyFy+bq8NJ5d9jXMmcszQwfIonqPe VRqznG0F0y9YOS8tIqw0T96eiubc254y92IkZK38fPccjybJCdiPPywHGdGR7OwsjQ mIu+GCQUUCCxO5xAbtNWIs+gO+Ch7PqGvsFumJjE=
From: adammontville <>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch <>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch/issues/18/>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch/issues/>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch/issues/>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d9d074b76746_2bbd3fedf34cd9681559a8"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: adammontville
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-arch] Substitute enterprise boundary with ecosystem boundary (#18)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 22:01:50 -0000

I received an off-list suggestion to use term _responsibility domain_ instead of _ecosystem boundary_. The argument put forth is essentially that the term ecosystem isn’t really used to describe architectural boundaries. 

I think what we were going after in making this change is to explicitly recognize that the computing resources used by an enterprise today may include endpoints (in the traditional sense), and other computing resources such as non-enterprise devices (BYOD), and resources that are part of a shared responsibility model.

1. Is the reasoning described above correct?

2. Does the term _responsibility domain_ capture this notion?


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: