Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Architecture
draft-ietf-sacm-architecture-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nancy Cam-Winget , Lisa Lorenzin, Ira McDonald , loxx at cisco | ||
| Last updated | 2015-01-03 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-sacm-architecture-02
SACM N. Cam-Winget, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational L. Lorenzin
Expires: July 7, 2015 Pulse Secure
I. McDonald
High North Inc
A. Woland
Cisco Systems
January 3, 2015
Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Architecture
draft-ietf-sacm-architecture-02
Abstract
This document defines the SACM reference architecture for
standardization of interfaces, protocols and information models
related to security automation and continuous monitoring. It
describes the basic architecture, components and their interfaces
defined to enable the collection, acquisition and verification of
Posture and Posture Assessments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Component Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Posture Assessment Information Provider . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Posture Assessment Information Consumer . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Interfaces between Consumers, Providers, and Controllers 8
4. Component Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Control Plane Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Data Plane Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1.1. Internal Collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1.2. External Collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1.3. Collector Interactions With Target Endpoints . . 10
4.2.2. Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Report Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Data Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Example Illustration of Capabilities and Workflow . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Several data models and protocols are in use today that allow
different applications to perform the collection, acquisition, and
assessment of posture. These applications can vary from being
focused on general system and security management to specialized
configuration, compliance, and control systems. With an existing
varied set of applications, there is a strong desire to standardize
data models, protocols, and interfaces to better allow for the
automation of such data processes.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
This document addresses general and architectural requirements
defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-requirements]. This document describes an
architecture to enable standardized collection, acquisition, and
verification of Posture and Posture Assessments. This architecture
includes the components and interfaces that can be used to better
identify the Information Model and type(s) of transport protocols
needed for communication.
This document uses terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology].
2. Problem Statement
Securing information and the systems that store, process, and
transmit that information is a challenging task for organizations of
all sizes, and many security practitioners spend much of their time
on manual processes. Administrators can't get technology from
disparate sources to work together; they need information to make
decisions, but the information is not available. Everyone is
collecting the same data, but storing it as different information.
Administrators therefore need to collect data and craft their own
information, which may not be accurate or interoperable because it's
customized by each administrator, not shared.
Security automation and continuous monitoring require a large and
broad set of mission and business processes; to make the most
effective of use of technology, the same data must support multiple
processes. The need for complex characterization and assessment
necessitates components and functions that interoperate and can build
off each other to enable far-ranging and/or deep-diving analysis.
[NCW]This is a very broad problem statement that am not sure belongs
in the Architecture specification. Why does the charter not suffice?
What is the purpose of inserting this section in this draft?
3. Architectural Overview
At a high level, the architecture describes 'How' and 'Where'
information and assessment of posture may be collected, processed or
assessed. Three main functional components are defined: a Posture
Assessment Information Consumer (Cs), a Posture Assessment
Information Provider (P), and a Controller (Cr) used to facilitate
some of the security functions such as authentication and
authorization and other metadata functions.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
+--------------------------------------+
| +--------------------------------------+
| | +--------------------------------------+
| | | |
+-| | Posture Assessment |
+-| Information Consumer (Cs) |
+--------------------------------------+
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
- - - d - - -
|| ||A | a |B | |C
|| || | t | | |
- - - a - | |
\ / \ / | |
\ / \ / | |
/|---------------------|\ | |
/|----/ \--------| d |--|\
/ / Controller (Cr) \ ctrl | a | \
\ \ [Broker/Proxy/Repository] / plane | t | /
\|----\ /--------| a |--|/
\|---------------------|/ | |
/ \ / \ | |
/ \ / \ | |
- - - d - | |
|| ||A | a |B | |C
|| || | t | | |
- - - a - - -
\ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ /
+------------------------------------+
| |-+
| Posture Assessment | |
| Information Provider (P) | |-+
+------------------------------------+ | |
+------------------------------------+ |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Simple Architectural Model
3.1. Component Roles
An endpoint, as defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology], can function
in two primary ways: as the target of an assessment, and/or as a
functional component of the SACM architecture that can instantiate
one or more capabilities (see Section 4). Individual endpoints may
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
be a target endpoint, or a component, or both simultaneously.
Components can take on the role of Posture Assessment Information
Provider, Posture Assessment Information Consumer, and/or Controller.
3.1.1. Posture Assessment Information Provider
The Posture Assessment Information Provider (P or Provider) is the
component that contributes Posture Assessment Information and/or
Guidance either spontaneously or in response to a request. A
Provider can be a Posture Evaluator, Posture Collector, or an
application that has aggregated Posture Assessment Information that
can be shared.
The Provider implements the capabilities and functions that must be
handled to share or provide Posture Assessment information.
A Provider may provide information spontaneously, or in response to a
direct request from a Consumer. The information may be filtered or
truncated to provide a subset of the requested information to honor
the request. This truncation may be performed based on the
Consumer's request and/or the Provider's ability to filter. The
latter case may be due to security considerations (e.g. authorization
restrictions due to domain segregation, privacy, etc.).
The Provider may only be able to share the Posture Assessment
Information using a specific data model and protocol. It may use a
standard data model and/or protocol, a non-standard data model and/or
protocol, or any combination of standard and non-standard data models
and protocols. It may also choose to advertise its capabilities
through a metadata abstraction within the data model itself, or
through the use of the registration function of the Controller (see
Section 3.1.3) [QUESTION: Are these different?].
The Provider must be authorized to provide the Posture Assessment
Information and further, be authorized to do so with the specific
data models and protocols.
3.1.2. Posture Assessment Information Consumer
As described in Section 2.2 of the SACM Use Cases
[I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases], several usage scenarios are posed with
different application types requesting posture assessment
information. Whether it is a configuration verification system; a
checklist verification system; or a system for detecting posture
deviations, compliance or vulnerabilities, they all need to acquire
information about Posture Assessment. Thus, the architectural
component to enable such requests is defined as a Posture Assessment
Information Consumer (C or Consumer).
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
The Consumer implements the capabilities and functions that must be
handled in order to facilitate a Posture Assessment Information
Request. Requests can be either for a single posture attribute or a
set of posture attributes where those attributes can be the raw
information or an evaluated or assessed state based upon that
information. The Consumer may further choose to query for the
information directly (one-time query), or to request for updates to
be provided as the Posture Assessment Information changes
(subscription). A request could be made directly to an explicitly
identified Posture Assessment Information Provider (P or Provider),
but a Consumer may also desire to obtain the information without
having to know the available providers.
There may be instances where a Consumer may be requesting information
from various Providers and due to its policy or application
requirements may need to be better informed of the Providers and
their capabilities. In those use cases, a Consumer may also request
to discover the respective capabilities of those Providers using the
discovery function of the Controller (see Section 3.1.3).
The Controller (described below) must authorize a Consumer to acquire
the information it is requesting. The Consumer may also be subject
to limits or constraints on the numbers, types, sizes, and rate of
requests.
3.1.3. Controller
The Controller is a component defined to facilitate information
brokering or proxing and to execute on security functions and overall
SACM management and control system functions including:
Authentication: The architecture must account for an abstraction
where a Controller may be defined to affect the authentication of
Consumers and Providers independent of the actual information
sharing communication channel. This supports use cases where:
* Consumers may request information independent of knowing the
identities of the Providers.
* Providers may want to share the information without prior
solicitation.
Authorization: To restrict how Posture Assessment Information is
shared between the Consumers and Providers. At minimum a management
function must define the necessary policies.
The introduction of the Controller supports use cases where:
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
* Consumer's may request information independent of knowing the
identities of the Provider's
* Providers may want to share information unsolicited
The architecture must account for an abstraction where a Controller
may be defined to affect the authentication of the Consumers and
Providers independent of the actual information sharing
communication channel.
Identity Management: As typically, Identity Management for
authentication and authorization policies are best defined through a
centralized component, the Controller also provides these services.
Registration/Discovery: A discovery mechanism is required to
facilitate the interaction of Providers that may have different
Posture Assessment Information and potentially limited (or a rich
set) of ways in which they can share the information. Through the
use of a discovery mechanism, Consumers can have visibility of the
Providers present and the type(s) of Posture Assessment Information
that is available and how it can be requested. Similarly, a
Provider may need to register what Posture Assessment Information it
can share and how it can share it (e.g. protocol or with filtering
capabilities). Enabling this function through a Controller also
allows for the distinct definition of security considerations (e.g.
authorized registration of capabilities and of Providers) beyond how
a Provider may define its own capability.
Broker/Proxy: beyond the control and management functions for the
SACM system, a Controller may also provide the proxy or broker (and
possibly routing) function in the data plane. In the deployment
scenario where Providers do not assert the need to know its
Consumers and/or vice versa, the Controller can provide the
appropriate functions to ensure the Posture Assessment Information
is appropriately communicated from the Providers to the authorized
Consumers.
Data Store: as a broker, the Controller may also include data stores
to affect the appropriate buffering, aggregation or filtering as
required to deliver the data as communicated from the Provider to
the Consumer.
The Controller, acting as a management control plane, helps define
how to manage an overall SACM system that allows for Consumers to
obtain the desired Posture Assessment Information without the need to
distinctly know and establish a one (Consumer) to many (Provider)
connections. Similarly, a Provider may not need to distinctly know
and establish a one (Provider) to many Consumer) connections; e.g.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
the Controller enables the means to allow a SACM system to support
many to many connections. Note that the Controller also allows for
the direct discovery and connection between a Consumer and Provider.
As a SACM component, the Controller may be instantiated within the
same system or device acting as a Provider, Consumer (or both) or as
its own distinct Controller entity. In a rich SACM environment, it
is feasible to instantiate a Controller that provides both the
management (and control) functions for SACM as well as provide the
proxying, brokering or routing functions for the actual data, e.g.
Posture Assessment Information flow. Note that Controllers may be
implemented to only provide the management and control functions or
only the data proxy/broker function or both.
3.2. Interfaces between Consumers, Providers, and Controllers
As shown in Figure 1, communication can proceed with the following
interfaces and expected functions and behaviors:
A: interface "A" shown in Figure 1 handles the management and
control functions that are needed to establish, at minimum, a secure
communication between Consumers and Providers. The interface must
also handle the functions to allow for the discovery and
registration of the Providers as well as the ways in which Posture
Assessment Information can be provided (or requested).
B: interface "B" shown in Figure 1 enables Providers to share their
Posture Assessment Information spontaneously; similarly, it enables
Consumers to request information without having to know the
identities (or reachability) of all the Providers that can fulfill
Consumers' requests.
C: interface "C" shown in Figure 1 demonstrates the ability and
desire for Consumers and Providers to be able to communicate
directly when a Provider is sharing Posture Assessment Information
directly to a Consumer. The interface allows for the different data
models and protocols to be used between a Consumer and a Provider
with the expectation that the appropriate authentication and
authorization mechanisms have been employed to establish a secure
communication link between the Consumer and the Provider.
Typically, it is expected that the secure link establishment occurs
as a management or control function through the abstracted
Controller role (e.g. the Controller could be a proxy or could be
embedded in a Consumer or a Provider).
TODO - add text around the usage of various protocols for endpoint
data collection (SNMP, NETCONF, etc.?)
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
4. Component Capabilities
TODO: Intro text about capabilities
4.1. Control Plane Capabilities
TODO: Intro text about control plane capabilities
TODO: Determine whether broker, proxy, and repository need to be full
subsections or paragraphs in this section.
Broker: Intermediary negotiating connection between provider and
consumer.
Proxy: Intermediary negotiating on behalf of a consumer.
Repository: Intermediary receiving and storing data from a provider,
and providing stored data to a consumer.
4.2. Data Plane Capabilities
TODO: Intro text about data plane capabilities
4.2.1. Collector
A collector consumes Guidance and/or other Posture Assessment
Information; it provides Posture Assessment Information. Collectors
may be internal or external.
4.2.1.1. Internal Collector
TODO
4.2.1.2. External Collector
An external collector is a collector that observes endpoints from
outside. These collectors may be configured and operated to manage
assets for reasons including, but not limited to, posture assessment.
Collectors that are not primarily intended to support posture
assessment (e.g. intrusion detection systems) may still provide
information that speaks to endpoint posture (e.g. behavioral
information).
Examples:
o A RADIUS server whereby an endpoint has logged onto the network
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
o A network profiling system, which discovers and classifies network
nodes
o A Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) sensor
o A vulnerability scanner
o A hypervisor that peeks into the endpoint, the endpoint being a
virtual machine
o A management system that configures and installs software on the
endpoint
4.2.1.3. Collector Interactions With Target Endpoints
TODO
4.2.2. Evaluator
An evaluator consumes Posture Assessment Information, Evaluation
Results, and/or Guidance; it provides Evaluation Results. An
evaluator may consume endpoint attribute assertions, previous
evaluations of posture attributes, or previous reports of Evaluation
Results.
[kkw-i don't think this conflicts with the definition in the
terminology doc re: that evaluation tasks evaluate posture
attributes.]
[cek-I like the change. I think it *does* require a change in the
terminology doc, though.]
Example: a NEA posture validator [RFC5209]
[jmf- a NEA posture validator is not an example of this definition.
A NEA posture assessment is, maybe?]
[cek-Why isn't a NEA posture validator an example?]
4.2.3. Report Generator
A report generator consumes Posture Assessment Information,
Evaluation Results, and/or Guidance; it provides reports. These
reports are based on:
o Endpoint Attribute Assertions, including Evaluation Results
o Other Reports (a weekly report may be created from daily reports)
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
It may summarize data continually, as the data arrives. It also may
summarize data in response to an ad hoc query.
4.2.4. Data Store
A data store consumes any data; it provides any data.
5. Example Illustration of Capabilities and Workflow
TODO: revise all this text
+-------------------------------+
| +-------------------------------+
| | |
+-| Controller (Cr) |
+-------------------------------+
// / \ \\
// / \ \\
A // / \ \\ A
// / \ \\
// / B B \ \\
// / \ \\
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| +-------------------------------+ A | +-------------------------------+
| | |===========| | |
| | Posture Assessment |-----------| | Posture Assessment |
+-| Information Consumer (C) | C +-| Information Provider (P) |
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
Figure 2: Communications Model
SACM's focus is on the automation of collection, verification and
update of system security configurations pertaining to endpoint
assessment. In order to carry out these tasks, the architectural
components shown in Figure 1 can be further refined as:
Posture Assessment Information Providers: a Provider may be
dedicated to perform either the collection, aggregation or
evaluation of one or more posture attributes whose results can be
conveyed to a Posture Assessment Information Consumer. In this
example form of the SACM architecture model, these are shown as
Collection, Evaluation, and Results Providers. Note that there may
be posture attributes or posture assessment information that
articulates Guidance information which may or may not be present in
the architecture.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
Posture Assessment Information Consumers: a Consumer may request or
receive one or more posture attributes or posture assessment
information from a Posture Assessment Information Provider for their
own use. In this example form of the SACM architecture model, these
are shown as Collection, Evaluation, and Results Consumers. Note
that there may be posture attributes or posture assessment
information articulating Guidance information which may or may not
be present in the architecture to be provided or consumed.
Data Stores: a Data Store is both a Provider and a Consumer, storing
one or more posture attributes or assessments for endpoints. It
should be understood that these repositories interface directly to a
Provider or Consumer (and Guidance) but the interfaces used to
interact between them is outside the scope of SACM (e.g. no
interface arrows are shown in the architecture).
Figure 3 illustrates an example flow for how Posture Assessment
Information may flow.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
+-------------+
|Evaluation |
+-------------+ |Guidance +--+
|Endpoint | |Capability | |
+-------+ | +-------------+ |
| | | |
| +-------+-----+ +-----v-------+
| Collection | |Evaluation |
+-> Capability +--+--------+ |Capability |
| | |Collection | +-----------+ +----------+
| +------------+Provider | | |---| |
| | | |Collection | |Evaluation|
| | | |Consumer | |Provider |
| +----+------+ +----^------+ +---+------+
++---------+ | | |
|Collection| +-----v------+ +---+--------+ |
|Guidance | | | |Collection | |
|Capability| |Collection | |Provider | |
| | |Consumer |-----| | |
+----------+ +------------+ +------------+ |
| Collection | |
| Data Store | |
+------------+ |
|
+--------------+ +---------------+ |
|Evaluation | |Evaluation | |
|Results | |Consumer <-----+
|Provider |-----------| |
+-----+--------+ +---------------+
| |Results Reporting|
| |Capability |
| +------------^----+
| |
+-----v--------+ +----+------+
|Evaluation | |Reporting |
|Results | |Guidance |
|Consumer | |Data Store |
+---+----------+ +-----------+ +-------------+
| | Results |
+-----------------------------> Data Store |
| |
+-------------+
Figure 3: Example Posture Information Flow
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
TODO - add example of / more content around interactions with
endpoint, possible communications patterns
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jim Bieda, Henk Birkholz, Jessica
Fitzgerald-McKay, Trevor Freeman, Adam Montville, and David
Waltermire for participating in architecture design discussions,
reviewing, and contributing to this draft.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
The SACM architecture defines three main components that interface
with each other both for management and control (in the control
plane) and for the sharing of Posture Assessment Information.
Considerations for transitivity of trust between a Provider and
Consumer can be made if there is a well understood trust between the
Provider and the Controller and between the Consumer and Controller.
The trust must include strong mutual authentication, at minimum,
between the Provider and Controller and between the Consumer and
Controller.
To address potential Man-in-the-Middle (MiM) attacks, it is also
strongly recommended that the communications be secured to include
replay protection and message integrity (e.g. transport integrity and
if required, data integrity). Similarly, to avoid potential message
tampering, confidentiality should also be provided.
As the Controller provides the security functions for the SACM
system, the Controller should provide strong authorizations based on
either or both business and regulatory policies to ensure that only
authorized Consumers and obtaining Posture Assessment Information
from authorized Providers. It is presumed that once authenticated
and authorized, the Provider, Controller or Consumer is deemed
trustworthy; though note that it is possible that the modules or
devices hosting the SACM components may be compromised as well (e.g.
due to malware or tampering); however, addressing that level of
trustworthiness is out of scope for SACM.
As the data models defined through the interfaces are transport
agnostic, the Posture Assessment Information data in the interfaces
may leverage the transport security properties as the interfaces are
transported between the Provider, Consumer and Controller. However,
there may be other devices, modules or components in the path between
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
the Provider, Consumer and Controller that may observe the interfaces
flowing through them.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sacm-requirements]
Cam-Winget, N. and L. Lorenzin, "Secure Automation and
Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements", draft-ietf-
sacm-requirements-02 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]
Waltermire, D., Montville, A., Harrington, D., and N. Cam-
Winget, "Terminology for Security Assessment", draft-ietf-
sacm-terminology-05 (work in progress), August 2014.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases]
Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Endpoint Security
Posture Assessment - Enterprise Use Cases", draft-ietf-
sacm-use-cases-07 (work in progress), April 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, January
2003.
[RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J.
Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and
Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Nancy Cam-Winget (editor)
Cisco Systems
3550 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: ncamwing@cisco.com
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2015
Lisa Lorenzin
Pulse Secure
2700 Zanker Rd, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: llorenzin@pulsesecure.net
Ira E McDonald
High North Inc
PO Box 221
Grand Marais, MI 49839
US
Email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
Aaron Woland
Cisco Systems
1900 South Blvd. Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
US
Email: loxx@cisco.com
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2015 [Page 16]