RE: DMZ, defined.

[dreamwvr <dreamwvr () dreamwvr com>]

Since DMZ is taken how about calling it the 'The Pen' seems to fit from 
my understanding of the language;) Since according to definition 
namely 'Webster Dictionary' it is a enclosure for animals. Well since
the big I is often called 'The Wild' it works for me:)
                                                Regards,
                                                dreamwvr () dreamwvr com
At 09:32 PM 1/21/99 -0500, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, graham, randy wrote:
>
> > So now we have a language expert.  This talk about what a DMZ "really" is
> > seems to miss one extremely important feature of language - change.  Just
>
> An equally important feature of language is to use traditional meanings 
> to communicate effectively.
>
> > check out the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) sometime.  The meaning of a
> > word changes over time.  John, you no more have the right to give an
> > absolute definition than anyone else here.  I think beyond saying that the
>
> Yet not pointing out a generally accepted meaning to a term that has 
> traditionally been used in a field can cause confusion. 
>
> > DMZ is a less heavily protected region somewhere in our network arena (and
> > even some people might disagree with this broad use), we really aren't
going
> > to have a general agreement on where exactly the DMZ goes.
>
> In traditionally firewalling terms, a DMZ is a network inside of our 
> network boundary but outside of our bastion host.  Wanting it to be 
> anything else doesn't automatically make it so.
>
> > So an area behind a/the firewall off a third NIC cannot be called a DMZ.
>
> It can be called "Grape Kool-aid", but that doesn't make it such or 
> follow established tradition.
>
> > Why not?  Because you don't want to call it that?  I put some equipment
>
> No, because such networks have traditionally been labled as "service 
> networks", in keeping with the fact that they are offered some form of 
> protection by the bastion host, and therefore topologically different 
> than the tradtional DMZ.
>
> > there work, but try to offer some protection.  Why can't I call this a DMZ
> > if that's what I think of as the DMZ?  It is fairly open, but I restrict
>
> You can, but when you speak with others in the firewall community they'll 
> think you mean something else.  There's nothing stopping you from calling 
> it a "protected internal network" either.  Just don't expect others who 
> are using the terminology built up in the field over a long period of 
> time to (a) understand you, or (b) follow your terminology whims.
>
> > what I can.  I track as well as I can what goes in and out there.  It
> > doesn't have any more access to my internal net than the outside world.
> > What's missing here?
>
> What's missing is several years of firewalling architecture discussions 
> which have built up some commonly used terminology.
>
> > I really don't mean to be a jerk about this (I get to be a jerk at work
> > enough that I don't need to act like that on mail lists to meet my daily
> > recommended allowance).  In fact, I've enjoyed your recent postings and
> > learned quite a bit these past couple of days.  But please don't tell me
how
> > I can define a term.  As long as everyone with whom I speak knows how I use
> > the term, it should be fine.  I do know now what you mean by DMZ, but I
>
> This causes ambiguity.  There's _more than enough_ ambiguity with terms 
> such as "firewall", we really don't need more.
>
> > don't use the term the same.  As long as we know this about each other, we
> > can communicate effectively, and that is where we really need to be.
>
> I'd question how effectively you can communicate, or what you do to a 
> field by redefining terms to suit an individual whim.
>
> If I tell my mechanic that the spark plug wire is bad, and I mean the 
> previously established definition of spark plug wire which I and my friends 
> use to mean "left indicator bulb", I've added confusion for no great reason.
>
> Perhaps a better question would be what we gain from your use of a term 
> which hasn't traditionally been used in the way in which you seem to want 
> to use it.  As far as I can see, we gain ambiguity and confusion.
>
> I'm not the language police, but I probably wouldn't agree to calling it 
> "freebled whatsit network four" either.
>
> Paul
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal opinions
> proberts () clark net      which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
>                                                                     PSB#9280
Reuters, London, February 29, 1998: 
Scientists have announced discovering a meteorite which will strike the 
earth in March, 2028.  Millions of UNIX coders expressed relief for being 
spared the UNIX epoch "crisis" of 2038.
_______________________________________________________________________

DREAMWVR.COM - TOTAL WEB INTEGRATION, DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN SERVICES. 
Featuring Website Development and Web Strategies of a TOP Developer 
<http://www.dreamwvr.com/dynamicduo.html> <mailto:dreamwvr () dreamwvr com>
"As Unique as the Company You Keep."        "===0 PGP Key Available  
________________________________________________________________________