Hi,

Inline below.

Cheers,

- Ira

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Adam W. Montville <ad= am@stoicsecurity.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Engelbach <Gunnar.Engelbach@ThreatGu= ard.com> wrote:

>
> Hopefully mail issues are resolved now and this won't be bounced b= y the list server...
>
>
> 1) Separation between collection request and collection action
> =C2=A0That is, the request for a data item must include enough informa= tion to properly identify the item to collect, but the request shall not be= a command to directly execute nor directly applied as arguments to a comma= nd.
>
> =C2=A0The purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the poten= tial attack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the requ= est for collection from the collection method thereby allowing more flexibi= lity in how collection is implemented.
>

This seems reasonable to me. =C2=A0Others?

<ira> I agree that this strong separation is an important require= ment.
=C2=A0

>
> 2) Chaining of collected values
> =C2=A0The value from a collected item should be able to be used as par= t of the collection of another item. =C2=A0This must be able to be expresse= d as part of the collection request so that these references can be resolve= d at the point of collection without having to interact with the requester.=
>
> =C2=A0For example, using the value of a registry key to determine the = location of an installed software package so that the proper file version c= an be collected.
>

This makes sense to me as well, but I don=E2=80=99t prefer the word = =E2=80=9Cchaining=E2=80=9D. =C2=A0To me, it makes sense to call this relati= onship a composition within collection requests: A collection request can b= e composed of other collection requests (which yield collected values). =C2= =A0Thoughts?

<ira= > I agree with Adam that I don't like the word "chaining" = here.=C2=A0 I agree with

Adam that "composition" is better.=C2=A0 We should avoid (i= n requirements) such

inter-item identity re= ference details as the use of a registry key.=C2=A0 I think the
<= /div>

mechanisms of collection reque= st "composition" should not be discussed in

a requirements or arch= itecture document.

>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> --gun
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

--001a11c3de38fef08004fb049e34-- From nobody Wed Jun 4 20:47:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9F21A01C1 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:47:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.15 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 Z-0Yq0tN_Fhz for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9881A001E for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12250; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401940016; x=1403149616; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=g0R6Z133uNw21YuCCqYcQn1ucW2pCu332dGk+/iJEc0=; b=jxsD2jAyj8oLPPyMnZX95nlHqthevgKg4NBNd+7q1sf36K/+lfVlOJY9 MdpkbSEnOZb5XQ21kryBAfKmP+2TPvQ330xICBt0W2A3kfrnVMZpSEdvN ch1lId3RPIspijF5/xUJoI0Fuu6VeIRvsWJ2rZpYjEadmJRxFBfzuSktH A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAB7nj1OtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABPAQmCQkVSWLtDAYc4AYEMFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBawQHEAIBCBEBAgECKAchBgsUAwYIAgQBDQMCiC4DCQgNzDENhg0TBIw8gToBCgEBPg0EBwKEPgSYGYF6jUKFd4M4QYE1OQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.98,977,1392163200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="50376767" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2014 03:46:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s553ktqw012319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 03:46:55 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.225]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:46:55 -0500 From: "Jim Bieda (jbieda)" To: Ira McDonald , "Adam W. Montville" Thread-Topic: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection Thread-Index: AQHPf0nsIn7QCm6EqE+xAvd+OeW61ZthTWUAgAAh1gCAAFI8AA== Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 03:46:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <538DF975.9010701@ThreatGuard.com> <875AED2B-7B1B-4294-ADD4-A74F67077AB6@stoicsecurity.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326 x-originating-ip: [10.117.122.167] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFB530741D040jbiedaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/o-JTHETALyESv7cW5vjbGMg38-s Cc: Gunnar Engelbach , "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:47:04 -0000 --_000_CFB530741D040jbiedaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Also inline below. Thanks, Jim From: Ira McDonald = > Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:52 AM To: "Adam W. Montville" >, Ira McDonald = > Cc: Gunnar Engelbach >, "sacm@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection Hi, Inline below. Cheers, - Ira On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Adam W. Montville > wrote: On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Engelbach > wrote: > > Hopefully mail issues are resolved now and this won't be bounced by the l= ist server... > > > 1) Separation between collection request and collection action > That is, the request for a data item must include enough information to = properly identify the item to collect, but the request shall not be a comma= nd to directly execute nor directly applied as arguments to a command. > > The purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the potential att= ack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the request for = collection from the collection method thereby allowing more flexibility in = how collection is implemented. > This seems reasonable to me. Others? I agree that this strong separation is an important requirement. I like this separation a lot. I would potentially add a requirement = for 'rate limiting' requests to prevent DOS attacks, but at the very least,= we need to separate the request from the collection action. Keep in mind = that we specified that responses could be synchronous and asynchronous, so = this separation is an implied requirement that's needed to support the sepa= ration of these response options. > > 2) Chaining of collected values > The value from a collected item should be able to be used as part of the= collection of another item. This must be able to be expressed as part of = the collection request so that these references can be resolved at the poin= t of collection without having to interact with the requester. > > For example, using the value of a registry key to determine the location= of an installed software package so that the proper file version can be co= llected. > This makes sense to me as well, but I don=92t prefer the word =93chaining= =94. To me, it makes sense to call this relationship a composition within = collection requests: A collection request can be composed of other collecti= on requests (which yield collected values). Thoughts? I agree with Adam that I don't like the word "chaining" here. I agre= e with Adam that "composition" is better. We should avoid (in requirements) such inter-item identity reference details as the use of a registry key. I thin= k the mechanisms of collection request "composition" should not be discussed in a requirements or architecture document. While I think this is a reasonable requirement, I think it belongs in= the data format/data definition section vs. the 'requirements' section bec= ause it specifies the internals of a request. Maybe we should consider it = a requirement for the data requests? > > > Thoughts? > > > > --gun > > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm _______________________________________________ sacm mailing list sacm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm --_000_CFB530741D040jbiedaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <7D9EA3B13133CA40A3CBF6325AC63165@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Also inline below.

Thanks,

Jim

From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:52 = AM
To: "Adam W. Montville" &= lt;adam@stoicsecurity.com>= , Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic= @gmail.com>
Cc: Gunnar Engelbach <Gunnar.Engelbach@threatguard.com<= /a>>, "sacm@ietf.org" <= ;sacm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additi= onal Requirements -- Collection

Hi,

Inline below.

Cheers,

- Ira

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Adam W. Montvill= e <adam@stoics= ecurity.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Engelbach <Gunnar.Engelbach@ThreatGuard.com> wrote:<= br>
>
> Hopefully mail issues are resolved now and this won't be bounced by th= e list server...
>
>
> 1) Separation between collection request and collection action
> That is, the request for a data item must include enough informa= tion to properly identify the item to collect, but the request shall not be= a command to directly execute nor directly applied as arguments to a comma= nd.
>
> The purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the poten= tial attack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the requ= est for collection from the collection method thereby allowing more flexibi= lity in how collection is implemented.
>

This seems reasonable to me. Others?

<ira> I agree that this stron= g separation is an important requirement.

<Jim> I like this separation a lot. &nbs= p;I would potentially add a requirement for 'rate limiting' requests to pre= vent DOS attacks, but at the very least, we need to separate the request fr= om the collection action. Keep in mind that we specified that responses could be synchronous and asynchronous, so this= separation is an implied requirement that's needed to support the separati= on of these response options.

>
> 2) Chaining of collected values
> The value from a collected item should be able to be used as par= t of the collection of another item. This must be able to be expresse= d as part of the collection request so that these references can be resolve= d at the point of collection without having to interact with the requester.
>
> For example, using the value of a registry key to determine the = location of an installed software package so that the proper file version c= an be collected.
>

This makes sense to me as well, but I don=92t prefer the word =93chaining= =94. To me, it makes sense to call this relationship a composition wi= thin collection requests: A collection request can be composed of other col= lection requests (which yield collected values). Thoughts?

<= ;ira> I agree with Adam that I don't like the word "chaining" = here. I agree with

Ada= m that "composition" is better. We should avoid (in require= ments) such

int= er-item identity reference details as the use of a registry key. I th= ink the

mec= hanisms of collection request "composition" should not be discuss= ed in

a r= equirements or architecture document.

<Jim> While I think this is a reasonable= requirement, I think it belongs in the data format/data definition section= vs. the 'requirements' section because it specifies the internals of a req= uest. Maybe we should consider it a requirement for the data requests?

>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> --gun
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

--_000_CFB530741D040jbiedaciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Jun 5 08:33:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79E51A0193 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham 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 FPyK8X_RSkdF for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA9041A01A7 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:33:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhELAEKNkFOHCzIm/2dsb2JhbABZgkIjIlJYqloGmCcBgQ0WdIInAQEDEgsQXgEMCRVWJgEEGxqIIAGda4RbsEgXhVWITINjgRUEoSyMIIM4gi8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.98,981,1392181200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="69204054" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.38]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2014 11:33:14 -0400 X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Jun 2014 11:31:03 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:33:13 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "sacm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF-90: call for agenda items Thread-Index: Ac+A03WS1xGrj3UzRxayEDpiIOUKjw== Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:33:12 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70BAZFFEXMB04globa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/AMXSKsZmBSuK5hvk5oTLoNr_dJ0 Subject: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:33:28 -0000 --_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70BAZFFEXMB04globa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please send your = requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant Internet-Draft(s= ). Thanks and Regards, Dan --_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70BAZFFEXMB04globa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

It’s time to build the agenda for the meeting = at IETF-90. Please send your requests including the topic, requested time, = and relevant Internet-Draft(s).

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

--_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70BAZFFEXMB04globa_-- From nobody Sun Jun 8 17:02:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681921B278B for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 1BFJOaJ-GrvG for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1A2E1B2789 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:02:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15912; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402272133; x=1403481733; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=uYlL9sCdkSLEsOGYlsp4cj+mGG9ZIFI6xik2D4G1ilU=; b=YzCoHVebCq1q74eIOTn9zL8iPyeN2lnuQzEBKA9dfBHxdB+Y+VmFU89J VZn79bPIJNG4ZOoofm3ixn0C1Q+t0UbyaJryTVl7hyEYm/SESuHLX898i 8r/kbCxJGf+7GQMZU4hTs/Fbl330yOp8KA3/l3SMlEIJJYhoiiUGsuRbe k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAND4lFOtJA2B/2dsb2JhbABPAQmCRkdSWbxkAYc7AYEKFnWEAwEBAQMBAQEBawQHEgEIEQECAQIoKAYLFAMGCAIEAQ0DAoguAwkIDcMnDYYIEwSMSoFGAQoBAT4NBAcChD8EmCeBeo1MhXmDPEGBNTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,1000,1392163200"; d="scan'208,217";a="51330039" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2014 00:02:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s59029m3017709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:02:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.121]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:02:09 -0500 From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" To: "Jim Bieda (jbieda)" , Ira McDonald , "Adam W. Montville" Thread-Topic: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection Thread-Index: AQHPg3YOQz+Nd88pRkW4ZRdL4fpQnA== Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [10.21.69.188] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFBA46D6BD327ncamwingciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/DtkNeJiWcqS3OW_cx4-qmyw20ao Cc: Gunnar Engelbach , "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:02:16 -0000 --_000_CFBA46D6BD327ncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Please see below: From: "Jim (jbieda)" > Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 8:46 PM To: Ira McDonald >,= "Adam W. Montville" = > Cc: Gunnar Engelbach >, "sacm@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection Hi, Also inline below. Thanks, Jim From: Ira McDonald = > Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:52 AM To: "Adam W. Montville" >, Ira McDonald = > Cc: Gunnar Engelbach >, "sacm@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additional Requirements -- Collection Hi, Inline below. Cheers, - Ira On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Adam W. Montville > wrote: On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Engelbach > wrote: > > Hopefully mail issues are resolved now and this won't be bounced by the l= ist server... > > > 1) Separation between collection request and collection action > That is, the request for a data item must include enough information to = properly identify the item to collect, but the request shall not be a comma= nd to directly execute nor directly applied as arguments to a command. > > The purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the potential att= ack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the request for = collection from the collection method thereby allowing more flexibility in = how collection is implemented. > This seems reasonable to me. Others? I agree that this strong separation is an important requirement. I like this separation a lot. I would potentially add a requirement = for 'rate limiting' requests to prevent DOS attacks, but at the very least,= we need to separate the request from the collection action. Keep in mind = that we specified that responses could be synchronous and asynchronous, so = this separation is an implied requirement that's needed to support the sepa= ration of these response options. [NCW] I=92m OK with this as well, I think this is part of the =93protocol= =94, so at some point, I=92d like to break the requirements based on an agr= eed upon categorization. But I will add this to the requirements draft. Jim: I like the =93rate limiting=94 but I think that is an implementation = details to be added to the state machine, so perhaps better on the architec= ture state machine? > > 2) Chaining of collected values > The value from a collected item should be able to be used as part of the= collection of another item. This must be able to be expressed as part of = the collection request so that these references can be resolved at the poin= t of collection without having to interact with the requester. > > For example, using the value of a registry key to determine the location= of an installed software package so that the proper file version can be co= llected. > This makes sense to me as well, but I don=92t prefer the word =93chaining= =94. To me, it makes sense to call this relationship a composition within = collection requests: A collection request can be composed of other collecti= on requests (which yield collected values). Thoughts? I agree with Adam that I don't like the word "chaining" here. I agre= e with Adam that "composition" is better. We should avoid (in requirements) such inter-item identity reference details as the use of a registry key. I thin= k the mechanisms of collection request "composition" should not be discussed in a requirements or architecture document. While I think this is a reasonable requirement, I think it belongs in= the data format/data definition section vs. the 'requirements' section bec= ause it specifies the internals of a request. Maybe we should consider it = a requirement for the data requests? [NCW] I agree that this feels more to me towards a state machine or impleme= ntation detail=85=85 > > > Thoughts? > > > > --gun > > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm _______________________________________________ sacm mailing list sacm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm --_000_CFBA46D6BD327ncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <31D8FEB5DCEA2C4EB0868B66F837D923@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Please see below:

From: "Jim (jbieda)" <= jbieda@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 8:= 46 PM
To: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>, "Adam W.= Montville" <adam@stoicse= curity.com>
Cc: Gunnar Engelbach <Gunnar.Engelbach@threatguard.com<= /a>>, "sacm@ietf.org" <= ;sacm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Possible Additi= onal Requirements -- Collection

Hi,

Also inline below.

Thanks,

Jim

Hi,

Inline below.

Cheers,

- Ira

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Adam W. Montvill= e <adam@stoics= ecurity.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Engelbach <Gunnar.Engelbach@ThreatGuard.com> wrote:<= br>
>
> Hopefully mail issues are resolved now and this won't be bounced by th= e list server...
>
>
> 1) Separation between collection request and collection action
> That is, the request for a data item must include enough informa= tion to properly identify the item to collect, but the request shall not be= a command to directly execute nor directly applied as arguments to a comma= nd.
>
> The purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the poten= tial attack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the requ= est for collection from the collection method thereby allowing more flexibi= lity in how collection is implemented.
>

This seems reasonable to me. Others?

<ira> I agree that this stron= g separation is an important requirement.

[NCW] I=92m OK with this as well, I think this is part of the = =93protocol=94, so at some point, I=92d like to break the requirements base= d on an agreed upon categorization. But I will add this to the requir= ements draft.

Jim: I like the =93rate limiting=94 but I think that is an imple= mentation details to be added to the state machine, so perhaps better on th= e architecture state machine?

>
> 2) Chaining of collected values
> The value from a collected item should be able to be used as par= t of the collection of another item. This must be able to be expresse= d as part of the collection request so that these references can be resolve= d at the point of collection without having to interact with the requester.
>
> For example, using the value of a registry key to determine the = location of an installed software package so that the proper file version c= an be collected.
>

This makes sense to me as well, but I don=92t prefer the word =93chaining= =94. To me, it makes sense to call this relationship a composition wi= thin collection requests: A collection request can be composed of other col= lection requests (which yield collected values). Thoughts?

<= ;ira> I agree with Adam that I don't like the word "chaining" = here. I agree with

Ada= m that "composition" is better. We should avoid (in require= ments) such

int= er-item identity reference details as the use of a registry key. I th= ink the

mec= hanisms of collection request "composition" should not be discuss= ed in

a r= equirements or architecture document.

[NCW] I agree that this feels more to me towards a state machine or im= plementation detail=85=85

>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> --gun
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

--_000_CFBA46D6BD327ncamwingciscocom_-- From nobody Sun Jun 8 17:17:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B9D1B278E for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FUZZY_AMBIEN=0.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 YcGttvoPkvYY for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 833DD1B2789 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:17:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1750; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402273060; x=1403482660; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=gztc37Xe/ykYjHmfGXtlfMFJSQVt38fyLWFGz1vbiUo=; b=OkLjhS9mcToM8AO2O7YuigtayG6+I4eBmQJQIfc6ZrQL5KYTCaNeunM5 sYhrB2tP4Xav+k/FV86qkCltsMF6r6svfXuKAPmxTDXom7L7CWjrnSDo+ yNFE266pnqfyj5Fz17w1Yq9BpEEMd7SO1EVuXQO6xrebrm7EL7k1QTupL M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnwJAPz8lFOtJA2E/2dsb2JhbABZgkZHUlmuF4x8EIoIFnWDehCBCwELAQ5mFxAEiFUNmx2uHheTNASaIYFCkgODPIIv X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,1000,1392163200"; d="scan'208,217";a="331497491" Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2014 00:17:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s590HT1V027077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:17:30 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.121]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:17:29 -0500 From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" To: "sacm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Requirements -04 uploaded Thread-Index: AQHPg3gy35yLp5KlWkC5vaYBy1Nc1g== Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:17:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [10.21.69.188] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFBA4B27BD33Ancamwingciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/EWGdWSHtH_R_kqzNKzzhzxceWjM Subject: [sacm] Requirements -04 uploaded X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:17:42 -0000 --_000_CFBA4B27BD33Ancamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I=92m just submitted a new version (-04) of the Requirements draft; per the= request at the last interim call, I=92ve removed the architecture section. I=92ll be submitting a different draft of the Architecture based on the arc= hitecture design team by end of this week/early next week. Meanwhile, the requirements draft is in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra= ft-camwinget-sacm-requirements/ Thanks, Nancy --_000_CFBA4B27BD33Ancamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <7EAA0781FE6F034E8538C3C37BA67F44@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I=92m just submitted a new version (-04) of the Requirements draft; pe= r the request at the last interim call, I=92ve removed the architecture sec= tion.

I=92ll be submitting a different draft of the Architecture based on th= e architecture design team by end of this week/early next week.

Meanwhile, the requirements draft is in http://datatracker.iet= f.org/doc/draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements/

Thanks, Nancy

--_000_CFBA4B27BD33Ancamwingciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Jun 9 06:42:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064B91A0168 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:42:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FUZZY_AMBIEN=0.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 TsoAxZGu2B9i for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A821A0164 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id vb8so1879607obc.39 for ; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 06:42:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=clEavrUeFwxt3SfBaHcZBvuSobV1AFXiaDZM0ftlK9A=; b=D1/mPIQ5Fb+YAJZRCSH6ZpOI0jQ4ZO72behbYxZ9WWkVco6C1sj306wrYWWABtqwYc qbLieSo8ohS/m13ZixjasW51/MBXXqaFp/OYQpEDEH6ZreZf1yYD8N2H0rphqbqEao3C fuUDE9HrXCGaYFI1ozrIAST2TlubQn4qPPv8310FKLi/q1cqxTJzJZ4a36gQWNU3tkeW Vr46pgadWQEWkV+s+ePLCbLJYA0O0ZUHJWAMlsQQKZi+TX76hHD7xkrO2l873F4PY0X1 Js5WIfsihzxgIITfb/KmmQTMzwW9cPbZ+6NY364A/hTEM+bWX8KSqerb9/9vZsIIUkNK gh/A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmu17f0KUQ/ma0taf7CZEl2DiuTsgukPqboPcJOc+d79UF+zj9znpPSewbbYfuYtNNVRdYV X-Received: by 10.60.35.104 with SMTP id g8mr11445621oej.41.1402321338350; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 06:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.73.117.69] ([107.107.185.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm68364652oed.7.2014.06.09.06.42.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Jun 2014 06:42:16 -0700 (PDT) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7DAE9806-E5B5-4719-BAE6-F334DFFDCBF0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <71DAC9AB-C314-4877-8BE4-EB8C0E888A77@stoicsecurity.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D201) From: "Adam W. Montville" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 08:42:14 -0500 To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/yjMXZC0xxpW5SnxrG5mfVlKPbac Cc: "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] Requirements -04 uploaded X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:42:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail-7DAE9806-E5B5-4719-BAE6-F334DFFDCBF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you! > On Jun 8, 2014, at 7:17 PM, "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I=E2=80=99m just submitted a new version (-04) of the Requirements draft; p= er the request at the last interim call, I=E2=80=99ve removed the architectu= re section. > I=E2=80=99ll be submitting a different draft of the Architecture based on t= he architecture design team by end of this week/early next week. >=20 > Meanwhile, the requirements draft is in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dr= aft-camwinget-sacm-requirements/ >=20 > Thanks, Nancy > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm --Apple-Mail-7DAE9806-E5B5-4719-BAE6-F334DFFDCBF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you!

On Jun 8, 201= 4, at 7:17 PM, "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi,

I=E2=80=99m just submitted a new version (-04) of the Requirements draf= t; per the request at the last interim call, I=E2=80=99ve removed the archit= ecture section.

I=E2=80=99ll be submitting a different draft of the Architecture based o= n the architecture design team by end of this week/early next week.

Meanwhile, the requirements draft is in http://datatracker.ietf.= org/doc/draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements/

Thanks, Nancy

____________________= ___________________________
sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman= /listinfo/sacm

= --Apple-Mail-7DAE9806-E5B5-4719-BAE6-F334DFFDCBF0-- From nobody Tue Jun 10 16:53:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E24B1A0264 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 YGU1P2H3PV5l for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68891A00FD for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id bj1so1234059pad.3 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=Vvne+RP6d3yTdO5WCDM9zx3bynQXsY3+oPT+yNNlwK0=; b=bogTLEDKIrQmQjs55XS/K+NqEDhyEBw+cvFievP5hP2XQlsT8MkGtpwA8H8S3J/yDy jLYEppsRDPmPwfVjBqn4TdTZcHIopozN1x60F+NpgPoICZFkRlJY1DVQGqXBX8Xc+Gw4 ADqG4WdaW+D7Dhh83J7cX/EgXQ/H24RnRh1xhjS1tnsoFVB2/p/680y3anICLPmBlYwN HbGMr8eXs24dqhtuontRUKsRn8Bisz89XIbbOCMTB/LXjAqvzYJDfZnA1ct55XszgY7y 3Zn705YG2UYxvngHg1mXjpXe3IHt35b4KtihKjbkdHsJ2bOw2wjFjQ8xoRKl9ARUsfdV exQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlCbawf5U2oQ9YEOQtZKY1FI4giILQ7hzBZ5CKGXxV82J/lK15q3cgOYk8pCJ6BYbIHTJNf X-Received: by 10.68.132.42 with SMTP id or10mr484588pbb.80.1402444383511; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.50.206] (c-50-186-47-98.hsd1.or.comcast.net. [50.186.47.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hk5sm71477928pbb.86.2014.06.10.16.53.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:53:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Adam W. Montville" Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80241336-CFAB-49E6-94D4-BC429E325533"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Message-Id: <09C1F4CC-C93B-4516-A886-AB20FF58A62F@stoicsecurity.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:52:55 -0700 To: sacm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/m6U2npYO4FZP0CdZGKk7Pe2u3Xc Subject: [sacm] Interim Notes X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:53:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_80241336-CFAB-49E6-94D4-BC429E325533 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Apologies, but will those who took notes at the last virtual interim = please send them to me? Thanks, Adam --Apple-Mail=_80241336-CFAB-49E6-94D4-BC429E325533 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTl5paAAoJELhc5c4zaVWHrU4IAKvuqELagG+twwSkTXvrnyhL xV11laQAd5ENTyAiMDc3M8r1BgxF8bYnxaBuV2796770M4TaAK6e+wpWNOBZ0/nY A5m379DF++Rh8ktXq0ms4oY8tQwNoAWFeqc09+yn7WbYEosyHTLcn1wQ0sZdBnsh yz+++Xr4hH/UFQYEf+RFq8KpwrERPU3JEmBtLHwuinzeh0qwteNwx454HAl5RcG8 lm+nozxcNq5xT9wltq7l5ayzamZ39FyfGyYDW8WKPb8WUSjQmouDLAXCPf85ty83 ROWmxyREnDJ6MSm0GSB48X5tYpY37Gd8Ybu15Wo7T6V4OsFRZeuPs967/6B4PGw= =MF++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_80241336-CFAB-49E6-94D4-BC429E325533-- From nobody Thu Jun 19 06:09:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60C51A03BD for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 jf_NGIMGJUjI for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com (mail-pd0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197A01A03C1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r10so1815595pdi.4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=3uaRnXYcY8inVgdgaIxZ5B73axYhV8zRXg4tHguzaiQ=; b=UBkSWANIqb/kNDneLLm4NapEuR4PgFelSlfYII2BE+7u0ZX7+Y3ZJduaE0s6eQ9+qX l+5OfQSdSMVxxd5ZZCuZrXWImxLDSt9JX95k9fJ42+EZwqsX0yDej7LBqueiEggD0t2V 9KSf2O29E5iepnUWXELKhlKlSM+knGx/wVwoH1ETfNtrTxgLXYmgBSXpdSwIsDbIS4UF 2GI349zPepKSmxupTI+R5Oa9IcaaUf75FgHQTRGC7h6jqF+JTzaLKY9b+PNRihMIOSh0 m0MYFBjW5X1dLpNYf8xHSjQwQ8iXMVxyXOEnVjaeUFmnr7s7nVxodgImlt/iT8Bxo5SH rpyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJKHsLp7DkayhnmcLCf/M9ShosC2kmiZWKcUrjySImIpxz41G64+yAsdQXzu5zQHwKPUN2 X-Received: by 10.66.254.136 with SMTP id ai8mr5404765pad.37.1403183337691; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:3406:4f00:25c9:19c7:4436:d713? ([2602:306:3406:4f00:25c9:19c7:4436:d713]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bu1sm8596915pbb.54.2014.06.19.06.08.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:08:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Adam W. Montville" Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F238F0E-780E-45D3-AF5F-D681B5112D86"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Message-Id: <5774A382-4BF6-4F3E-B3BF-2C5E93FE39FC@stoicsecurity.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:08:52 -0500 To: sacm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/x_IouC0IXxQCmGpZLC3gaz-_uG0 Subject: [sacm] May Interim Consolidated Notes X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:09:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6F238F0E-780E-45D3-AF5F-D681B5112D86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Minutes for the virtual interim meeting have been uploaded here: = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/05/28/sacm/minutes/minutes-in= terim-2014-sacm-3. Please review them for accuracy. Thanks to Gunnar, Dave M., and Josh for their notes (Lisa too). Adam --Apple-Mail=_6F238F0E-780E-45D3-AF5F-D681B5112D86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTouDkAAoJELhc5c4zaVWHkjAIALZA9rEd0Mv8fnspju7akxNt 1QEngb/8QzKFJrL/LxZr3+JgO1knvUrHcC+u/4XqUD3mHKyJN1iKZF32884W13C5 TDZixInfQupTe7hwNCuZOhIu3v7eeR8Ml4xewApJmz2dnbDimhbi7bgQrv0kOt8j 0NZ8NYGa0vwC3Pe6okbG/2o3X+YcLisefJIHx4Qj9sMEatS5S9ZW/isb3z+BB0JH bU2NxAdOOkVaOuEf3kAMuOZ6MDq9eAZOjhTmkGlQ8TU8PgwAKBvJoysxoGbrWEw0 yLjXYDX7z2vO/KJ5g+/QQo8dxl/LbtsBsbbAUONeMdT+G3u6vjMYYvLfJUshECQ= =cIOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6F238F0E-780E-45D3-AF5F-D681B5112D86-- From nobody Thu Jun 19 06:12:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDF01A01DE for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:12:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ibcV8P-EJaKC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4198B1A03C0 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fb1so1894887pad.14 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:11:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to; bh=RgVQFFfO4AnureYCbfTOb3auC1jFqXk0ZQ5oM/SZheI=; b=OG572qBS7W51m6DfMyELVOCbQVI2CfTcPgRZU6UBAM/KoUOtnEZWyZr/uMrve6Prux Fzt8B721X6ThxoX9+NfjwPeYgeisUHJppF/JFTj+0jcMltWfqD/bnqtvlfRPbC6SIzFc T8Xb5Tvzf0f2qZz5p7D0/sxtlWz/Uxs0dwGEWx0goUEWyuvHueiJeTdjT/ASE0cNluHk 9p5cKXs3XmRhN99teim5Xn60XyJsh5CnO509xa+vTzANmQr6fDTcu41SSySqiHTTK+J4 SexkhUGBy+S4PNJJ8rW/zQgOny9z40gUjBouUU4kC3tMWPWzf+mMwGWtYsa1nSPSASnJ 67kw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5gv8DaWgGqXP5Yem0jHSMDMJvjjUsDPWNIrgQ3AH7sf0CSfcvLbMeeYliNPHB41yA5M9E X-Received: by 10.68.173.1 with SMTP id bg1mr5529368pbc.13.1403183498843; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.55] (99-64-100-240.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net. [99.64.100.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dz4sm26778444pab.47.2014.06.19.06.11.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:11:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Adam W. Montville" Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BCBDCF83-1A7B-4D46-A574-511B35EE5EAF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Message-Id: <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:11:34 -0500 References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> To: "sacm@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/gfOw_RNcrUvlAJq0NVKwqEamv6g Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:12:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BCBDCF83-1A7B-4D46-A574-511B35EE5EAF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23D3170D-B417-41AE-AFA4-3B4DE1BC320E" --Apple-Mail=_23D3170D-B417-41AE-AFA4-3B4DE1BC320E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. =20 We=92ll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and = architectures, but anything on information/data models at this point? = We have requested two 2.5 hour slots. Adam On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) = wrote: > Hi, > =20 > It=92s time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please = send your requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant = Internet-Draft(s). > =20 > Thanks and Regards, > =20 > Dan > =20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm --Apple-Mail=_23D3170D-B417-41AE-AFA4-3B4DE1BC320E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

A = reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. =

We=92ll probably want to talk more about = specific requirements and architectures, but anything on = information/data models at this point? We have requested two 2.5 = hour = slots.

Adam

On = Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com> = wrote:

Hi,

It=92s = time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please send your = requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant = Internet-Draft(s).

Thanks and = Regards,

Dan

________________________________= _______________
sacm mailing list
sacm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

= --Apple-Mail=_23D3170D-B417-41AE-AFA4-3B4DE1BC320E-- --Apple-Mail=_BCBDCF83-1A7B-4D46-A574-511B35EE5EAF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTouGGAAoJELhc5c4zaVWHfVMH/2dUZ0Cw2tlUnMnBefh2l8V2 g+ff7WDvCcaQMv9BIFyq9GtdNq3Nr83SWGQrvUsX5LlOU41hmbJ77mdrY3BuQ5w9 Dgf1fB/Iuzfy+MRErBAzwTOODvUo+cIZa8Pd4zvE3HomTdnWiL4QE6UUVn4Rw5xr 92psW8GREFdHadyo5Zk3jDOnL8l8O4RIFcLTZaVRlFzy/ExAq5YhRwKOQLL7/+PZ igD96TsVS5PXPCcxemRPZ9MIP6KuaefPpUIW0gHZClSrF+pkr0CR43Yl8aaT6yQw XXb1p7KJtjPy81SSpsAO8eWdS9DmA5evyXzBNtPQtF/aWh1N8SrFoZxl3ln4V9U= =QNiX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BCBDCF83-1A7B-4D46-A574-511B35EE5EAF-- From nobody Mon Jun 23 08:00:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1AC1B2B37 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zE7T-Qjaxb2s for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0142.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D57A1B2AFF for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR05MB551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.152) by BY2PR05MB727.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.223.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:00:11 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) by BY2PR05MB551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:00:09 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) by BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) with mapi id 15.00.0969.007; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:00:10 +0000 From: Lisa Lorenzin To: "Adam W. Montville" , "sacm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items Thread-Index: Ac+A03WS1xGrj3UzRxayEDpiIOUKjwK7IjQAAMzJ5uA= Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:00:08 +0000 Message-ID: <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> In-Reply-To: <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.12] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 025100C802 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(164054003)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(81542001)(99396002)(85306003)(74316001)(21056001)(76576001)(46102001)(95666004)(76482001)(79102001)(4396001)(64706001)(77982001)(101416001)(86362001)(74502001)(33646001)(83322001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(80022001)(76176999)(92566001)(50986999)(54356999)(2656002)(105586002)(99286002)(31966008)(87936001)(85852003)(20776003)(15975445006)(106356001)(83072002)(66066001)(81342001)(74662001)(24736002)(106276001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB551; H:BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=llorenzin@juniper.net; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/PVYPYDb_yT6rS3BFWR7eSvcxcls Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:00:39 -0000 Hi Adam, I'd like two agenda items, please: 1) A SACM information model based on TNC 2) XMPP protocol extensions for use in SACM transport We will have Internet-Drafts and overview slides for each topic. One of my co-authors and/or I will present - if you can put me as a placeholder presenter for now, and I can update you closer to the meeting date, that would be ideal. Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: sacm [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam W. Montville Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:12 PM To: sacm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. We'll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and architectu= res, but anything on information/data models at this point? We have reques= ted two 2.5 hour slots. Adam On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrot= e: Hi, It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please se= nd your requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant Internet= -Draft(s). Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ sacm mailing list sacm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm From nobody Mon Jun 23 08:09:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D4C1B2AF3 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LTx-U401GoFh for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08C61B297B for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id va2so4120103obc.18 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=rf1ynPbzQW5xSk9hzuTb99Hw+BetQ6N6rlprlqPH2k4=; b=E33MrM+fxknFozFqRBVJNDKbYLPBi4Si3dWgAEoDm2vzqYJitXwflV2PmKkgDjruhV 5SHzsU5UER9IHu01fT9aZo2Ry/S5GRKKJzswT4hQ9J91Uj8GMwHRkvcDRln29/MtPkxi khbbKAO2/bj5nySl5R8qxqgIUPPc6wlJT1WsOcopD0C1hRgzkPXRWUfAxB8vH2md1XS2 z4kiCwFxIWmVNQfDdWlMyqP+AzWwOR7Z8qqLaElfga9Uy8QoKYMiGEsiRbcNUAJeeKmc 3jvVQGXKQpWnLAoDx/rVeMAdqufk8OmBmlkwM2qDZ32NnFXI4mAqxzna8K8ag9LZVomk ElwA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZjVNCkzLc+1DO2jvgGq4068aB3n1QFfHvNze+L4E2YeReWt5SPDt3mLFHnyMBZi6ZhD15 X-Received: by 10.182.60.65 with SMTP id f1mr3155856obr.78.1403536137062; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:3406:4f00:895e:132d:bf6d:b496? ([2602:306:3406:4f00:895e:132d:bf6d:b496]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm19491368obx.0.2014.06.23.08.08.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9077A0B2-A495-4CD9-A036-39DBC9CC4CE5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) From: "Adam W. Montville" In-Reply-To: <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:08:51 -0500 Message-Id: <2DFFE14D-27C5-47CD-9CC2-731377C4D844@stoicsecurity.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> To: Lisa Lorenzin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/_WCK3gGs9QseLaOIWOb1SPA4x2o Cc: "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:09:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9077A0B2-A495-4CD9-A036-39DBC9CC4CE5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Lisa, Noted! Thank you. =20 Do you have any idea how much time you would like? Adam On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Lisa Lorenzin = wrote: > Hi Adam, >=20 > I'd like two agenda items, please: > 1) A SACM information model based on TNC > 2) XMPP protocol extensions for use in SACM transport >=20 > We will have Internet-Drafts and overview slides for each topic. > One of my co-authors and/or I will present - if you can put me > as a placeholder presenter for now, and I can update you closer > to the meeting date, that would be ideal. >=20 > Thanks, > Lisa >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: sacm [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam W. = Montville > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:12 PM > To: sacm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items >=20 > A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. >=20 > We'll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and = architectures, but anything on information/data models at this point? = We have requested two 2.5 hour slots. >=20 > Adam >=20 >=20 > On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. = Please send your requests including the topic, requested time, and = relevant Internet-Draft(s). >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_9077A0B2-A495-4CD9-A036-39DBC9CC4CE5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTqEMGAAoJELhc5c4zaVWHvs0H/A12rsW2+V75WeRqQxZ0qfYY aNJjGj1yFkLiTQhAXjee2/Cge9sBPo92i0tDqrpYzI1BCEds+On2krbSqlmRT0BD 1tA3IQK+H0WV3pf+dyhWSJRh32Km0G2BlTihV/OiT6qqlasfwLkMScQb2HfG3CXx 4nqrbp00PNEp5F/uY2HIayNCAHVGbuTQdRWT7purkmXE3jD4SJI5bwsMkw8nPuVY Luq658WcMDONVyvUfwNkaxM1gseKvw3vnY5GeyWK7GH34b2R08UtP0kC4EEHQThg 147W/AVVYgO5Gp63tVzd1bTdmTRx8ZAhXRy5ZFo+kWNe/Rmf3Fj0IaSvezZfb+0= =+JSD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_9077A0B2-A495-4CD9-A036-39DBC9CC4CE5-- From nobody Tue Jun 24 05:09:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861551B2896 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:09:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2788Fa7xdV8i for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E93E51B2871 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) by BY2PR05MB237.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.41.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:35 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) by BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:34 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) by BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) with mapi id 15.00.0969.007; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:34 +0000 From: Lisa Lorenzin To: "Adam W. Montville" Thread-Topic: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items Thread-Index: Ac+A03WS1xGrj3UzRxayEDpiIOUKjwK7IjQAAMzJ5uAAAHkcgAArMluw Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:34 +0000 Message-ID: <007f26664d8f40d088240b03bf540a35@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2DFFE14D-27C5-47CD-9CC2-731377C4D844@stoicsecurity.com> In-Reply-To: <2DFFE14D-27C5-47CD-9CC2-731377C4D844@stoicsecurity.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.12] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02524402D6 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51704005)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(164054003)(13464003)(46102001)(80022001)(74662001)(74502001)(31966008)(33646001)(76482001)(77982001)(76576001)(64706001)(85306003)(20776003)(93886003)(19580405001)(86362001)(4396001)(19580395003)(99396002)(79102001)(92566001)(66066001)(83072002)(85852003)(106356001)(2656002)(74316001)(81342001)(83322001)(81542001)(87936001)(21056001)(50986999)(76176999)(15975445006)(99286002)(101416001)(105586002)(95666004)(54356999)(24736002)(106276001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB550; H:BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/av64iYB5FPM-tOqewLjm7Jfk83s Cc: "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:09:42 -0000 We'd like 30-45 minutes for each topic, if possible... =20 Regards, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Adam W. Montville [mailto:adam@stoicsecurity.com]=20 Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 11:09 AM To: Lisa Lorenzin Cc: sacm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items Hi Lisa, Noted! Thank you. =20 Do you have any idea how much time you would like? Adam On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Lisa Lorenzin wrote: > Hi Adam, >=20 > I'd like two agenda items, please: > 1) A SACM information model based on TNC > 2) XMPP protocol extensions for use in SACM transport >=20 > We will have Internet-Drafts and overview slides for each topic. > One of my co-authors and/or I will present - if you can put me > as a placeholder presenter for now, and I can update you closer > to the meeting date, that would be ideal. >=20 > Thanks, > Lisa >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: sacm [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam W. Montville > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:12 PM > To: sacm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items >=20 > A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. >=20 > We'll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and architec= tures, but anything on information/data models at this point? We have requ= ested two 2.5 hour slots. >=20 > Adam >=20 >=20 > On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wr= ote: >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please s= end your requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant Interne= t-Draft(s). >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm >=20 >=20 From nobody Tue Jun 24 05:48:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B031F1B28D6 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 AtL5xYGVn_jw for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCFF21B2906 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l6so212769qcy.1 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=GgxwLJyNQ3qAPmEfOBX+iz546fVCVtlXr4fYw3RONcs=; b=MD64JIo7Somh64IebbemOCmM4m1MCco5HL5YrcECy0qi6OI7hlOzh2Eahf/0yY5o1F zkAa4cJ6QiukrkaF3+Ah3a50lQk3SiLerbmzssI/pwqhFml17UKd6eXF/Z6dxQHQ098C PPJJcgmzO5e4XPFSuf9/hb6H/SA7ngeSrtLjppU1daCWdUga6vsepj7fT+1vAAtVVdTn JvcEHGRbatQlkxPw/pSLuDvv0+oeGEaa/Sb7krWulXO1Js6JXuzRokB8zASkariAB7mv Y1G5GqMS5KgzTV5wqR8YzusepbErwM+RDMkrmk6f5U/A7zE0u7Gr8YSXf4YstQnES+GV dK1A== X-Received: by 10.140.16.164 with SMTP id 33mr1159238qgb.11.1403614075012; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (209-6-114-252.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.114.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm295677qaw.7.2014.06.24.05.47.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:47:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167) In-Reply-To: <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:47:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> To: Lisa Lorenzin Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/FmCMz_V0E_bIIrFEeCpQqdKGszw Cc: Atherton John , "Adam W. Montville" , "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:47:59 -0000 Hi Lisa, Have you posted a draft yet on the XMPP extensions? If so, can you share th= e link? =20 There is an XMPP extension for IODEF, but it has not become an IETF draft ye= t. Not sure if they could be combined for a generalized approach, but that m= ight be good. There are a couple of implementations for the IODEF extension= . I'm copying John Atherton who led one of those efforts and published a wr= ite up in the IODEF implementation report. Thank you, Kathleen=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Lisa Lorenzin wrote:= >=20 > Hi Adam, >=20 > I'd like two agenda items, please: > 1) A SACM information model based on TNC > 2) XMPP protocol extensions for use in SACM transport >=20 > We will have Internet-Drafts and overview slides for each topic. > One of my co-authors and/or I will present - if you can put me > as a placeholder presenter for now, and I can update you closer > to the meeting date, that would be ideal. >=20 > Thanks, > Lisa >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: sacm [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam W. Montville > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:12 PM > To: sacm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items >=20 > A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. >=20 > We'll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and architect= ures, but anything on information/data models at this point? We have reques= ted two 2.5 hour slots. >=20 > Adam >=20 >=20 > On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wro= te: >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please se= nd your requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant Internet-= Draft(s). >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm From nobody Tue Jun 24 05:54:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDDB1B28F8 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:54:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 n4U9TXc4HauW for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0140.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B111B28D6 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) by BY2PR05MB047.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.34.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:54:41 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) by BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.15; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:54:40 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) by BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.220.151]) with mapi id 15.00.0969.007; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:54:39 +0000 From: Lisa Lorenzin To: Kathleen Moriarty Thread-Topic: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items Thread-Index: Ac+A03WS1xGrj3UzRxayEDpiIOUKjwK7IjQAAPqiDX8AACHo8A== Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:54:39 +0000 Message-ID: <6d1988cc06754ba2bc085d90a6394eea@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7FE70B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6EF8C50C-A745-43F2-9734-C5859E7F9E7E@stoicsecurity.com> <01f53316f3784da78af9f87f5d4f4933@BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.12] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02524402D6 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(164054003)(13464003)(51704005)(377454003)(41574002)(189002)(199002)(81342001)(74316001)(76176999)(83322001)(81542001)(87936001)(50986999)(21056001)(83072002)(85852003)(106356001)(2656002)(105586002)(95666004)(54356999)(15975445006)(101416001)(99286002)(74502001)(74662001)(33646001)(76482001)(31966008)(46102001)(80022001)(86362001)(19580395003)(4396001)(19580405001)(66066001)(99396002)(92566001)(79102001)(64706001)(76576001)(85306003)(77982001)(93886003)(20776003)(24736002)(106276001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB550; H:BY2PR05MB550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/68wfRpxhb51QepmV9tqqwvxoSQo Cc: Atherton John , "Adam W. Montville" , "sacm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:54:47 -0000 Hi Kathleen, Still polishing it up, sorry - we expect to post both next week. Interesting about the IODEF extension - I'll share this with my collaborators, thanks! Regards, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:48 PM To: Lisa Lorenzin Cc: Adam W. Montville; sacm@ietf.org; Atherton John Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items Hi Lisa, Have you posted a draft yet on the XMPP extensions? If so, can you share t= he link? =20 There is an XMPP extension for IODEF, but it has not become an IETF draft y= et. Not sure if they could be combined for a generalized approach, but tha= t might be good. There are a couple of implementations for the IODEF exten= sion. I'm copying John Atherton who led one of those efforts and published= a write up in the IODEF implementation report. Thank you, Kathleen=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Lisa Lorenzin wrote= : >=20 > Hi Adam, >=20 > I'd like two agenda items, please: > 1) A SACM information model based on TNC > 2) XMPP protocol extensions for use in SACM transport >=20 > We will have Internet-Drafts and overview slides for each topic. > One of my co-authors and/or I will present - if you can put me > as a placeholder presenter for now, and I can update you closer > to the meeting date, that would be ideal. >=20 > Thanks, > Lisa >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: sacm [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam W. Montville > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:12 PM > To: sacm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sacm] IETF-90: call for agenda items >=20 > A reminder that we are still awaiting agenda requests. >=20 > We'll probably want to talk more about specific requirements and architec= tures, but anything on information/data models at this point? We have requ= ested two 2.5 hour slots. >=20 > Adam >=20 >=20 > On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wr= ote: >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > It's time to build the agenda for the meeting at IETF-90. Please s= end your requests including the topic, requested time, and relevant Interne= t-Draft(s). >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sacm mailing list > sacm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm From nobody Wed Jun 25 00:58:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032A61B2B09 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 caCidistEMbK for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33CDB1B2850 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1577; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403683082; x=1404892682; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=53Q4F2W21ngezZptYE/ZPDLsUKo5QsSrSHv7j+1UQhQ=; b=f6BqUhN0/e/TiBh0QxGjJ9mLUUKkeKRccull68Uab8o9oWxEyOGsv+K3 gc5YXmdER4ffd17I6kHEGOk0LenAd+KOOg7KJs85dzANiiGqnfJ53JlLc u2gHpt+OF4i8B+hNGqzb1Fn3dlNXAUkZTA6rCpxyrSlitMVs8b+JMecD1 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoAwAB+AqlOtJA2L/2dsb2JhbABagkZHUlqECbZkEIoVFnWDehCBCwELAQ5mFxAEiFUNmn2tRxeTRgWaUYFGkiWDQoIw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,544,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="335492210" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2014 07:58:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5P7w1VG003292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:58:01 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.10]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:58:01 -0500 From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" To: "sacm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Proposed architecture draft -00 posted Thread-Index: AQHPkEsvxxchIuJXM0qCfZoSgl7ZIQ== Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:58:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [10.21.122.42] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFCFCF18C12ABncamwingciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/oDzFFZVg2Hl_3iSXdYJBhUtdlbI Subject: [sacm] Proposed architecture draft -00 posted X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SACM WG mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:58:05 -0000 --_000_CFCFCF18C12ABncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone, Thanks to the SACM Architecture design team, we=92ve posted draft =9600 for= a SACM Architecture proposal in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-sacm-architecture-00 Please review and provide comments as I=92m sure we=92ll also be discussing= it in Toronto=85. Nancy. --_000_CFCFCF18C12ABncamwingciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <256DBB5FC977694784944AA9FB02A651@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi everyone,

Thanks to the SACM Architecture design team, we=92ve posted draft =960= 0 for a SACM Architecture proposal in

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-sacm-architecture-00

Please review and provide comments as I=92m sure we=92ll also be discu= ssing it in Toronto=85.

Nancy.=

--_000_CFCFCF18C12ABncamwingciscocom_--