Wow, that title makes me want to blush!

For those of you who read my ramblings often you know I work in the Enterprise Networking Group at Microsoft and one of the technologies I work on is Network Access Protection (see: Want to see what it is I do?).

Joel Snyder a frequent writer for technical trades, a principal at Opus One and a animal lover (see Wanda Rutkiewicz and Oliver Mellors) just said some nice things about Microsoft and the Trusted Computing Group in which I am an active participant.

Joel is a bright guy, one who is known to not worry about throwing punches (especially at Microsoft BTW ) so comming from him that means allot (see chat for the whole transcript):

kevsull
On standards, what is your opinion on these so-called consortiums that propose to be about standards, but on a closer look you can tell they are vendor-led and self-serving. NAP and TCG come to mind.

joel_snyder
Your question reveals a certain bias, but, even with that, I think that standards are totally key. Without a good set of standards, this is a technology that will fail miserably. Think PKI and, to some extent, IPsec VPN for remote access. Too much squabbling among the vendors, and too little "put aside our differences and move forward." I think that TCG/TNC is the one to watch; Microsoft (NAP) has joined in and is on the bus. The only one who is lagging behind TCG/TNC right now is Cisco and that's largely a personality difference as far as I can tell.

dougdooley
What's your opinion of Microsoft's willingness to partner in the NAC space? They seem to be friendly with everyone - joint demos with Juniper's UAC, road shows with Cisco's John Chambers? Is this a sign of desperation or doing the right thing by customer or both/neither?

joel_snyder
Doolster! MS is on the right side of the fence. Either that, or they are lying through their teeth, and I believe that they are honest. I have had some great conversations with them and some brilliant folks and I think that they are doing the right thing. Look, honestly, no ONE wants to write PC software, at least not in the network security business. Why should we be doing that when MS is offering to do that for us. Partner, rather than perish.

cd
Isn't the IETF developing standards that are vendor neutral? Where all the vendors contribute?

joel_snyder
IETF is, but it's a bit of a fiasco. I invite you to read the NEA minutes. There are a lot of egos involved. I love the IETF for what it was, but I believe that its effectiveness as a standards development organization has dropped precipitously in recent years. I would love to see IETF do it, and there are a bunch of smart folks there who are participating, but they are being dragged down by the "everyone has a voice, even if they shouldn't talk so much" crowd. My money's on the TCG/TNC, at least this year. I would love to be proven wrong, though.

Moderator-Keith
PRE-SUBMITTED QUESTION: OK, but what are your thoughts on what they've (CISCO) done?

joel_snyder
I'm going to reserve judgment (not that it's my place to judge, of course). By the way, this isn't just Cisco; it's also TCG/TNC that's just as critical for interoperability. I've had some great conversations with some brilliant folks like Ryan Hurst (he's the unmitigatedrisk.com guy and a part-time BBQ chef) at Microsoft and it's obvious that the mindset is there and the brainpower is there. Whether what comes out of the sausage grinder is what we need--I have to wait until I get it in the lab to find out. It's just a tiny bit early to tell, but when Longhorn (Windows 2008) comes out, we'll have a better view of the whole picture. The same's true for TCG/TNC -- Steve Hanna, another NAC guru, is leading that parade pretty well, but it's up to the vendors to release products that match up to the marketing slides.  

All I can say is thanks Joel, and invite me to that BBQ stand when it opens you know I will be there!