[CII] let's move past definitions

[Gadi Evron]

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> there was quite a lot of work in the ietf on emergency preparedness -
> c.f.
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/I-D/draft-brown-ieprep-sec-00.txt
> and this book came out
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FFbk45g_hJsC&dq=ian+brown+carlberg&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Z64kirWcVe&sig=t_yBL_f1ppZrKSB3EmwKobQinuU&hl=en&ei=hvIVS8rPFoT84Abj_7DVBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
> 
> there's also a lot of national and eu iniatives on critical
> infrastructure which people here seem to be reinventing slowly...
> 
> you can google away for this stuff provided their datacenters aren't
> down or hosed or gasping for air or electricity:)
> 
> j.

Indeed, but discovering a common language is not a bad idea.

I think there is general consensus (in a very loose meaning of the word) 
that critical infrastructure is:

1. Perspective and scale-based (for individuals, organizations, 
countries, the whole net, etc.)
2. Essential so that the infrastructure works and everything else 
dependent works.
3. Needs protection.

 From our perspective, we limit ourselves in our agenda to the 
infrastructure of the internet in a local and global sense.

That means:
1. Infrastructure the internet needs to exist (trucks and tubes? 
Electricity?)
2. Infrastructure so that technically, communication is possible (BGP, etc.)
3. Infrastructure so that applications can functions (DNS, etc.)
4. Critical services without which the internet will be heavily impacted 
(open definition for now)
5. Critical services which are deemed important for the daily usage of 
the internet (email, Google, etc.)

Let's work to finalize this to some form of the most generic agreement, 
so that we can move on.

This seems like Rob's and Bill's baby, so unless someone has any major 
issue... Bill, Rob, think that you can make sense of this for us to use 
for future reference?

	Gadi.