[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:40:33 +0000
cc: uri@watson.ibm.com, ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

In message <v0300780caf7309ff4bb8@[128.89.0.110]>, Stephen Kent writes:
>
>Responses from other WG members suggests that so long as we restrict the
>specs to requring support for what COULD be audited, IF auditing is turned
>on and IF the system in which IPsec is embedde supports auditing, then this
>is a reasonable part of the IPsec specifications.

Well, today's implementor's meeting at the IPsec decided that auditing
*should* be done. I strongly disagree with going into details of
the sort "well, if you have auditing and you have it turned on then
you should log this and that event".
-Angelos

Follow-Ups:

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Effective policy enforcement
Next by Date: Re: Slicing and Dicing in new-esp
Prev by thread: RE: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Next by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread