[WASC-WAFEC] What should we change in WAFEC 2.0?

Christian Heinrich christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Tue Jun 19 17:52:15 EDT 2012


Ken,

My recommendation would be to produce a high level draft of customer
requirements of items that complement a WAF and then have this
endorsed by end user(s) for inclusion or; as a supplement to WAFEC.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Kenneth Salchow <k.salchow at f5.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are asking for Christian ... are you looking for customer references that state that customers have other solutions (SSO, SSL-VPN, UTM, Firewall, etc) that they will be deploying alongside WAF?  I kind of thought that we could all agree that customers weren't installing WAF devices all by themselves; that would be kind of simplistic if you ask me.
>
> Further, yes, I do think we should mention all the regional certifications related to power consumption or other implementation issues.  As a customer (and while I'm not one now ... I was one once) those are ALL important things to me.  Why would I bother to investigate a solution that I would not be able to actually deploy because it doesn't meet the requirements of my environment?
>
> However, if everyone thinks it is of no value to customers to know this kind of information ... then that's fine by me.  I just personally think you are doing a disservice to the end customer to simply dismiss these items.  Today's networks are far too complex to simply ignore how devices interact with each other.


-- 
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact




More information about the wasc-wafec mailing list