RE: proposed AC018 rewording

This in an interesting issue.  IMO, systems management is something that
needs to be a considered an integral part of a given infrastructure, but
isolated as a separate discipline.  A given infrastructure (or
architecture) should provide well considered management capabilities
(aka API's) but the operational management (aka console, process or
whatever) needs to be cleanly separated from the infrastructure.

Relevant to this discussion, security management needs to be an integral
part of both (gosh that helps ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------
Darran Rolls                      http://www.waveset.com
Waveset Technologies Inc          drolls@waveset.com 
(512) 657 8360                    
--------------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:36 AM
> To: kreger@us.ibm.com
> Cc: Joseph Hui; ECKERT,ZULAH (HP-Cupertino,ex1); Damodaran, Suresh;
> Hao.He@thomson.ocm.au; adiber@att.com; wsgeek2002@yahoo.com; www-ws-
> arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposed AC018 rewording
> 
> 
> Requiring security to be easily manageable may actually reduce
security,
> so I'd personally like to see it in the management goal, not the
> security goal.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:57:49AM -0400, kreger@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Joe,
> > I really think that the security management requirement should stay
with
> > the security goal.
> > I thought that was the net of the F2F, but it was hard for me to
know
> for
> > sure.
> 
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 13:05:50 UTC