All,
I suggest that the TCG HCWG, being part of the TCG and privy to the
objectives and plans of the TCG, should concentrate on the how hardcopy
equipment is to be compatible with the protocols, specification and
practices that TCG is developing. It does not seem reasonable either from
the industry of from the TCG perspective that the TCG HCWG go beyond
consideration of TCG principals with respect to hardcopy equipment. This is
not to suggest that there is little work there. Understanding what the TCG
is doing and applying it to hardcopy equipment, developing use cases, and
either developing or identifying solutions would seem to be important both
to the meet the objectives of the TCG and to provide the industry with
interoperable approaches.
However, the TCG HCWG should seek to address the hardcopy specific aspects
in a way that is not incompatible with approaches being developed by the
industry to satisfy similar objectives under different auspices. It is
unclear what body, if any, will seek to standardize methods of meeting the
requirements in IEEE2600; that is a separate issue. However, following up on
a request from the TCG HCWG, the PWG IDS group is seeking to address the
hardcopy equipment health attributes in a way compatible with both TCG/NEA
and NAP (and perhaps the several other proprietary network access control
methods in existence). Therefore, some degree of mutual cooperation and
overlap is highly desirable.
Perhaps I see the TCG HCWG continuing to operate as it has with respect to
network access control, but with a bit more vigor. That is, the HCWG might
best act in determining HC specific use cases for TCG objectives, evaluating
whether TCG or other protocols or procedures are effective and practical in
addressing these objectives, and if necessary developing requirements
specifications for what additional features to existing solutions or
completely new solutions are necessary. However, I suggest that the actual
designs addressing any such requirements specifications best be done by a
broader, non restricted industry group that can consider them in a wider
non-TCG specific sense.
I think these sentiments may be in agreement with Dave and Randy's
comments.
Bill Wagner
From: owner-ids at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ids at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Whitehead
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Randy Turner
Cc: ids at pwg.org; owner-ids at pwg.org; STDS-2600 at LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: IDS> minutes from April 8 2009 TCG HCWG charter discussion
teleconference
All,
I agree with Randy that the goals and objectives of the various bodies
should not overlap. The goals and objectives of the TCG HCWG need to be
complementary to those of the P2600 and PWG IDS groups.
dhw
David H. Whitehead
Development Engineer
Lexmark International, Inc.
859.825.4914
davidatlexmarkdotcom
"Randy Turner" <rturner at amalfisystems.com>
Sent by: owner-ids at pwg.org
04/10/09 01:01 AM
To
<STDS-2600 at LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
cc
<ids at pwg.org>
Subject
IDS> minutes from April 8 2009 TCG HCWG charter discussion teleconference
Hi All,
After reading the minutes from the latest TCG HCWG re-chartering discussion,
I have the following comment...
I think, at a minimum, any new charter for the TCG HCWG should be filtered
through the goals and objectives of the p2600 work
and the PWG-IDS activity to determine any new objectives.
in other words,
o1 = set of p2600 goals and objectives (both core standard and protection
profiles)
o2 = set of PWG IDS goals and objectives (including NEA/TNC + IDS
attributes)
o3 = The union of o1 and o2 (i.e., o1 U o2)
o4 = The set of proposed TCG HCWG goals and objectives
The intersection of o3 and o4 should be the empty set
Thanks,
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Smithson" <brian.smithson at RICOH-USA.COM>
To: <STDS-2600 at LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:13 PM
Subject: [2600] minutes from April 8 2009 TCG HCWG charter discussion
teleconference
> Please see the attached meeting minutes from yesterday's teleconference
> discussion of the TCG Hardcopy Workgroup charter revision.
>> Many thanks to Shah Bhatti for leading the discussion, Seigo Kotani for
> acting as interim chair and BoD liaison, Steve Hanna for providing
> perspective from the TNC WG, and Lee Farrell for contributing his
> excellent notes to the production of these minutes.
>> --
> Regards,
> Brian Smithson
> PM, Security Research
> PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
> Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
> Ricoh Americas Corporation
> (408)346-4435
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ids/attachments/20090410/b9e3c9fa/attachment.html