From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 16:41:33 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4mCr-00012A-OQ; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:41:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4mCq-00011X-Pi for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:41:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15954 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4mO5-0005wr-Uw for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:53:11 -0500 Received: from cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.92.1.72]) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A3438688; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.92.1.35]) by cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:41:06 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Nea] RE: Comments on NEA Problem Statement Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:41:05 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Nea] RE: Comments on NEA Problem Statement Thread-Index: AcYhCI6+Tanv3wxWTW+yeNFSdBhy1gAvUUggAZ622DA= From: "Sanchez, Mauricio (PNB Roseville)" To: "Brian Ford (brford)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2006 21:41:06.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FAA2810:01C62841] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Brian noted....=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Brian Ford (brford) > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:51 AM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] RE: Comments on NEA Problem Statement >=20 > =20 > Mauricio, >=20 > Great message. >=20 > I disagree with your assessment that there are only three=20 > solutions that need to be considered. There are several very=20 > large and established security vendors not represented there=20 > as well as a number of start ups. I totally agree. I hope you didn't take my message to mean that it be limited to just the "big three." I am completely for having people come to the table to assist in this effort. However, I do want the problem statement to be more inclusive of the existing architectures At the very least to call them out by name and having references to them.=20 > Some of these others are bringing interesting alternatives to=20 > the table in their solutions. I hope they do bring them to the table. Frankly, this list has been too quiet.=20 >=20 > I don't believe section 1 of the problem statement defined an=20 > architecture as much as it tried to put some bounds around=20 > what is out there right now. We'll agree to disagree on this one...for now.=20 >=20 > Given that this IETF effort is still in the early formative=20 > stages don't you think we should refine the bounds and scope=20 > of the problem space before we start to consider interoperability? Yes, by referencing existing architectures...minimally at least the big three. >=20 > Liberty for All, With you here as well. :) MS _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 13:32:27 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F55jP-0006ee-Ea; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:32:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F55Yr-0003Xt-U0 for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:21:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26111 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F55kM-00062U-1q for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:33:27 -0500 Received: from host-100.funk.com (HELO mail.funk.com) ([199.103.155.100]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2006 10:21:08 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,85,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="527343431:sNHT23854508" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hannaxp [172.25.97.67]) by mail.funk.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1BGKN7MR; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:22:53 -0500 Message-ID: <43E39F1A.80909@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:21:14 -0500 From: Steve Hanna User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nea@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:32:26 -0500 Subject: [Nea] Re: Draft NEA WG charter: Please review X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org I suppose it goes without saying since I was involved in drafting this proposed charter and agenda but just for the record... I support holding an NEA BOF at the next IETF meeting to discuss the creation of a new WG with this charter or something similar. Thanks, Steve Hanna Juniper Networks Susan Thomson (sethomso) wrote: > Architectures have been implemented in the industry to assess > the software or hardware configuration of endpoint devices for the > purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance of endpoints to an > organization's policy for access to the network. These architectures are > not fully interoperable since some of the protocols used to implement > the architecture are not standards. > > The first purpose of the proposed working group is to define > requirements for the protocols needed to ensure interoperability in an > NEA system. The second purpose of the working group is to ensure > standardization of protocols that meet these requirements. In some > cases, these protocols may best be standardized in another working > group. Therefore, the proposed working group will work with the area > directors to determine the best way to complete this standardization > effort (in the proposed working group or in another one). > > The scope of the initial charter is on the following protocols that > support architectures for network endpoint assessment (as described in > draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt): > > 1. IF-PB (posture broker protocol) > 2. IF-PT (EAP method suitable for carrying posture information as well > as supporting authentication) > 3. IF-PT (EAP over IP transport protocol) > 4. IF-NAE (Radius attributes for network access enforcement) > > Other interfaces that may be included in the charter at a later date > include: > --- IF-PA (posture attribute protocol) > --- IF-SB (Protocol between server broker and posture server. Name of > interface TBD in problem-statement I-D. ) > > Note that the initial scope of the WG targets architectures that use the > EAP/Radius framework for IF-PT (posture transport interface) and IF-NAE > (network access enforcement interface). This does not preclude the > standardization of other posture transport protocols or network > authorization protocols in the future, but this is not part of the > initial charter. > > Work will be carried out in two phases. In the first phase, the WG will > define requirements for each of the protocols identified in 1) - 4) > above. When the requirements have been defined, this WG will work with > the responsible ADs to identify the appropriate WG for meeting these > requirements. > > Milestones: > > June 2006: > * Submit requirements I-D to IETF including > --- requirements for IF-PT (EAP method layer) > --- requirements for IF-NAE > > September 2006: > * Submit revised requirements I-D to IETF that includes above plus: > --- requirements for IF -PT (EAP over IP transport layer e.g. EAP over > UDP, EAP over TLS) > --- requirements for IF-PB > > December 2006: > * Review ongoing work in IETF (e.g. EMU WG, Radext WG, PANA WG, NEA WG) > and work with ADs to identify the WG responsible for accommodating > protocol requirements that are not currently being met. > > Feb 2007: > * Submit requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Info RFC > * Revise WG charter to accommodate definition of protocols not covered > in other WGs e.g. IF-PB > * Submit I-D on protocols to be defined in this WG e.g. IF-PB specification _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 13:40:02 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F55qk-00036C-3o; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F55qh-00035Q-8g for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:40:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27783 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14] helo=scsfmr002.sc.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F5627-0006ld-TZ for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:51:50 -0500 Received: from scsfmr101.sc.intel.com (scsfmr101.sc.intel.com [10.3.253.10]) by scsfmr002.sc.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.1 2004/09/17 17:50:56 root Exp $) with ESMTP id k13IdUGY011052; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:39:30 GMT Received: from fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.124]) by scsfmr101.sc.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.2 2004/09/17 18:05:01 root Exp $) with SMTP id k13IYo1t006124; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:34:56 GMT Received: from orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.60]) by fmsmsxvs040.fm.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2006020310392904655 ; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:39:29 -0800 Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:39:28 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [Nea] Draft NEA WG charter: Please review Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:39:26 -0800 Message-ID: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E085897C9@orsmsx408> Thread-Topic: [Nea] Draft NEA WG charter: Please review Thread-Index: AcYmerCojRMY6f2QQ5CseRDWgkJvegAe929g From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" To: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 18:39:28.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[29DCBF80:01C628F1] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 10.3.253.10 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0c3d807a9e67fb2ae2b97f891ffd2e4e Cc: X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1626514711==" Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1626514711== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C628F1.296F2B20" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F1.296F2B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry I haven't had the chance to review the charter yet, but I definitely support this BoF and creation of the working group at the next IETF meeting =20 I will be there at the meeting, =20 Best Regards=20 Hormuzd ________________________________ From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso) Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:26 AM To: nea@ietf.org Cc: Steve Hanna Subject: [Nea] Draft NEA WG charter: Please review Architectures have been implemented in the industry to assess the software or hardware configuration of endpoint devices for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance of endpoints to an organization's policy for access to the network. These architectures are not fully interoperable since some of the protocols used to implement the architecture are not standards. =20 The first purpose of the proposed working group is to define requirements for the protocols needed to ensure interoperability in an NEA system. The second purpose of the working group is to ensure standardization of protocols that meet these requirements. In some cases, these protocols may best be standardized in another working group. Therefore, the proposed working group will work with the area directors to determine the best way to complete this standardization effort (in the proposed working group or in another one). =20 The scope of the initial charter is on the following protocols that support architectures for network endpoint assessment (as described in draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt): =20 1. IF-PB (posture broker protocol) 2. IF-PT (EAP method suitable for carrying posture information as well as supporting authentication) 3. IF-PT (EAP over IP transport protocol) 4. IF-NAE (Radius attributes for network access enforcement) =20 Other interfaces that may be included in the charter at a later date include: --- IF-PA (posture attribute protocol) --- IF-SB (Protocol between server broker and posture server. Name of interface TBD in problem-statement I-D. ) =20 Note that the initial scope of the WG targets architectures that use the EAP/Radius framework for IF-PT (posture transport interface) and IF-NAE (network access enforcement interface). This does not preclude the standardization of other posture transport protocols or network authorization protocols in the future, but this is not part of the initial charter. =20 Work will be carried out in two phases. In the first phase, the WG will define requirements for each of the protocols identified in 1) - 4) above. When the requirements have been defined, this WG will work with the responsible ADs to identify the appropriate WG for meeting these requirements. =20 Milestones: =20 June 2006: * Submit requirements I-D to IETF including=20 --- requirements for IF-PT (EAP method layer)=20 --- requirements for IF-NAE=20 =20 September 2006: * Submit revised requirements I-D to IETF that includes above plus: --- requirements for IF -PT (EAP over IP transport layer e.g. EAP over UDP, EAP over TLS) --- requirements for IF-PB =20 December 2006:=20 * Review ongoing work in IETF (e.g. EMU WG, Radext WG, PANA WG, NEA WG) and work with ADs to identify the WG responsible for accommodating protocol requirements that are not currently being met. =20 Feb 2007: * Submit requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Info RFC * Revise WG charter to accommodate definition of protocols not covered in other WGs e.g. IF-PB * Submit I-D on protocols to be defined in this WG e.g. IF-PB specification ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F1.296F2B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry I haven’t had the chance to review the charter yet, = but

I definitely support this BoF and creation of the working group = at the next IETF meeting

 

I will be there at the meeting,

 

Best Regards 

Hormuzd

From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso)
Sent: Tuesday, January = 31, 2006 7:26 AM
To: nea@ietf.org
Cc: Steve Hanna
Subject: [Nea] Draft NEA = WG charter: Please review

Architectures have been implemented in the industry = to assess the software or hardware configuration of endpoint = devices for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance of endpoints to an organization's policy for access to the network. These = architectures are not fully interoperable since some of the protocols used to = implement the architecture are not standards.

 

The first purpose of the proposed working group is to = define requirements for the protocols needed to ensure interoperability in an = NEA system. The second purpose of the working group is to ensure = standardization of protocols that meet these requirements. In some cases, these protocols = may best be standardized in another working group. Therefore, the proposed = working group will work with the area directors to determine the best way to complete = this standardization effort (in the proposed working group or in another = one).

 

The scope of the initial charter is on the following protocols that support architectures for network endpoint = assessment (as described in = draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt):

 

1. IF-PB (posture = broker protocol)

2. IF-PT (EAP method suitable for carrying = posture information as well as supporting authentication)

3. IF-PT (EAP over IP transport = protocol)

4. IF-NAE (Radius attributes for network access = enforcement)

 

Other interfaces  that may be included in the = charter at a later date include:

--- IF-PA (posture = attribute protocol)

--- IF-SB (Protocol between server broker and = posture server. Name of interface TBD in problem-statement = I-D. )

 

Note that the initial scope of the WG targets = architectures that use the EAP/Radius framework for IF-PT (posture transport = interface) and IF-NAE (network access enforcement interface). This does not = preclude the standardization of other posture transport protocols or network authorization protocols in the future, but this is not part of the = initial charter.

 

Work will be carried out in two phases. In the first phase, the WG will define requirements for each of = the protocols identified in 1) - 4) above. When the requirements have been defined, this WG will work with the responsible ADs = to identify the appropriate WG for meeting these requirements.

 

Milestones:

 

June 2006:

* Submit requirements I-D to IETF =  including 

--- requirements for IF-PT (EAP method layer) =

--- requirements for IF-NAE

 

September 2006:

* Submit revised requirements I-D to IETF that = includes above plus:

--- requirements for IF -PT (EAP over IP transport layer e.g. EAP over UDP, EAP over TLS)

--- requirements for IF-PB

 

December 2006:

* Review ongoing work in IETF (e.g. EMU WG, Radext = WG, PANA WG, NEA WG) and work with ADs to identify the WG responsible for = accommodating protocol requirements that are not currently being = met.

 

Feb 2007:

* Submit  requirements I-D to IESG for = publication as Info RFC

* Revise WG charter to accommodate definition of = protocols not covered in other WGs e.g. IF-PB

* Submit I-D on  protocols to be defined in = this WG e.g. IF-PB specification

------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F1.296F2B20-- --===============1626514711== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --===============1626514711==-- From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 13:56:20 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F566W-0002MA-P5; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:56:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F566U-0002Lf-OA for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:56:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29032 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from silver.veritas.com ([143.127.12.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F56Ho-0007XG-TG for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:08:02 -0500 Received: from sxchcon1-int.veritas.com (HELO SVLXCHCON1.enterprise.veritas.com) ([10.137.18.171]) by silver.veritas.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2006 10:55:41 -0800 Received: from SVL1XCHEVSPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com ([166.98.169.12]) by SVLXCHCON1.enterprise.veritas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:55:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:55:05 -0800 Message-ID: <5A58F967CBEBBB4A82DF126CF8A9596A580A04@SVL1XCHCLUPIN02.enterprise.veritas.com> Thread-Topic: Support for BOF thread-index: AcYo81iEmysvuZdDQ0G3daTrFvUWbw== From: "Paul Sangster" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 18:55:40.0879 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DABFDF0:01C628F3] X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Subject: [Nea] Support for BOF X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2054228625==" Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============2054228625== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C628F3.6D98E63E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F3.6D98E63E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Following the other e-mail in show of support of the BOF and charter, I'd add a voice for the desire for a BOF to work towards standards in this critical area. The draft charter and agenda look like a good starting point for more discussion. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F3.6D98E63E Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support for BOF

Following the other e-mail in show of = support of the BOF and
charter, I'd add a voice for the = desire for a BOF to work towards
standards in this critical area.  = The draft charter and agenda look
like a good starting point for more = discussion.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F3.6D98E63E-- --===============2054228625== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --===============2054228625==-- From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 14:17:01 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F56QX-0001VW-2V; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F56QV-0001V9-TH for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:16:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00658 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F56c0-0008Mc-I7 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:28:53 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2006 14:16:42 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,85,1139202000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="81666680:sNHT51717264" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k13JGP6T027439; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:16:33 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:16:32 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: BOF request status Thread-Index: AcYo9le49KCeqcKXSGu1s90hYP8gJg== From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 19:16:33.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[5863D000:01C628F6] X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Cc: Subject: [Nea] BOF request status X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0044489041==" Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0044489041== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C628F6.581ECFBB" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F6.581ECFBB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In an upcoming message, we plan to make the official BOF request. =20 It is the same as the one reviewed this week, but we have distinguished the two IF-PT items as IF-PTa and IF-PTb as John Vollbrecht suggested (thanks, John). =20 I am sure we'll be able to refine this as we revise the problem statement I-D over the next month before the IETF. =20 Thanks very much for your feedback and support. =20 Susan & Steve =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F6.581ECFBB Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In an = upcoming=20 message, we plan to make the official BOF = request.
 
It is = the same as=20 the one reviewed this week, but we have distinguished the two IF-PT = items as=20 IF-PTa and IF-PTb as John Vollbrecht suggested (thanks,=20 John).
 
I am = sure we'll be=20 able to refine this as we revise the problem statement I-D over the next = month=20 before the IETF.
 
Thanks = very much=20 for your feedback and support.
 
Susan = &=20 Steve
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F6.581ECFBB-- --===============0044489041== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --===============0044489041==-- From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 14:35:16 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F56iC-0007XJ-8f; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:35:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F56i7-0007Vy-SU for nea@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:35:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02790; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F56td-0000xZ-65; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:47:05 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2006 11:34:54 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,85,1139212800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="21150801:sNHT47813372" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k13JYKPq014805; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:34:31 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:34:30 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: NEA BOF Request Thread-Index: AcYo+Nn3W2WNgvedR5ekLhNwty/TfA== From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" To: , "Mark Townsley \(townsley\)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 19:34:31.0249 (UTC) FILETIME=[DAAE3C10:01C628F8] X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8e9fbe727bc2159b431d624c595c1eab Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] NEA BOF Request X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1251090045==" Sender: nea-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1251090045== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C628F8.DA61082F" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F8.DA61082F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a request on behalf of the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) mailing list to have a BOF session at the Spring 2006 IETF in the Internet area. =20 Below, please find the following: 1. Draft Agenda 2. Proposed WG charter 3. Reference to "problem statement" internet draft 4. Mailing list information =20 The initial problem statement I-D, proposed agenda and charter have been reviewed on the mailing list. Significant interest has been expressed and we believe we have rough consensus for making this request. =20 Thank you Steve Hanna (shanna@juniper.net) Susan Thomson (sethomso@cisco.com) =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) BOF Draft Agenda =20 Agenda Bashing (5 minutes) NEA Problem Statement (45 minutes) Proposed NEA Charter (45 minutes) Consensus Check and Volunteering (25 minutes) =20 The goal of the NEA BOF is to confirm rough consensus on the NEA problem statement, on the importance of forming an IETF Working Group to address the problems described in that document, and on the proposed charter for such a Working Group. Further, the NEA BOF will verify that there are enough participants to make the NEA effort a success. =20 NEA BOF participants are expected to have read the documents listed below before the BOF meeting. Discussion of these documents before the BOF meeting is strongly encouraged. It will take place on the nea@ietf.org mailing lis =20 Proposed NEA Charter =20 Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) Problem Statement=20 draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt =20 Mailing List https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- Proposed NEA WG Charter =20 Architectures have been implemented in the industry to assess the software or hardware configuration of endpoint devices for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance of endpoints to an organization's policy for access to the network. These architectures are not fully interoperable since some of the protocols used to implement the architecture are not standards. =20 The first purpose of the proposed working group is to define requirements for the protocols needed to ensure interoperability in an NEA system. The second purpose of the working group is to ensure standardization of protocols that meet these requirements. In some cases, these protocols may best be standardized in another working group. Therefore, the proposed working group will work with the area directors to determine the best way to complete this standardization effort (in the proposed working group or in another one). =20 The scope of the initial charter is on the following protocols that support architectures for network endpoint assessment (as described in draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt): =20 1. IF-PB (posture broker protocol) 2. IF-PTa (EAP method suitable for carrying posture information as well as supporting authentication) 3. IF-PTb (EAP over IP transport protocol) 4. IF-NAE (Radius attributes for network access enforcement) =20 Other interfaces that may be included in the charter at a later date include: --- IF-PA (posture attribute protocol) --- IF-SB (Protocol between server broker and posture server. Name of interface TBD in problem-statement I-D. ) =20 Note that the initial scope of the WG targets architectures that use the EAP/Radius framework for IF-PT (posture transport interface) and IF-NAE (network access enforcement interface). This does not preclude the standardization of other posture transport protocols or network authorization protocols in the future, but this is not part of the initial charter. =20 Work will be carried out in two phases. In the first phase, the WG will define requirements for each of the protocols identified in 1) - 4) above. When the requirements have been defined, this WG will work with the responsible ADs to identify the appropriate WG for meeting these requirements. =20 Milestones: =20 June 2006: * Submit requirements I-D to IETF including=20 --- requirements for IF-PTa (EAP method layer)=20 --- requirements for IF-NAE=20 =20 September 2006: * Submit revised requirements I-D to IETF that includes above plus: --- requirements for IF -PTb (EAP over IP transport layer e.g. EAP over UDP, EAP over TLS) --- requirements for IF-PB =20 December 2006:=20 * Review ongoing work in IETF (e.g. EMU WG, Radext WG, PANA WG, NEA WG) and work with ADs to identify the WG responsible for accommodating protocol requirements that are not currently being met. =20 Feb 2007: * Submit requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Info RFC * Revise WG charter to accommodate definition of protocols not covered in other WGs e.g. IF-PB * Submit I-D on protocols to be defined in this WG e.g. IF-PB specification =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F8.DA61082F Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a request on behalf of the Network = Endpoint=20 Assessment (NEA) mailing list to have a BOF session at the Spring 2006 = IETF in=20 the Internet area.
 
Below, please find the=20 following:
1. Draft Agenda
2. Proposed WG = charter
3. Reference to "problem statement" internet=20 draft
4. Mailing list = information
 
The initial problem statement I-D, proposed = agenda and=20 charter have been reviewed on the mailing list. Significant interest has = been=20 expressed and we believe we have rough consensus for making this=20 request.
 
Thank you
Steve Hanna (shanna@juniper.net)<= /FONT>
Susan = Thomson (sethomso@cisco.com)<= /SPAN>
 
----------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------
Network = Endpoint Assessment=20 (NEA) BOF Draft Agenda
 
Agenda Bashing = (5=20 minutes)
NEA Problem = Statement (45=20 minutes)
Proposed NEA = Charter (45=20 minutes)
Consensus Check = and=20 Volunteering (25 minutes)
 
The goal of the NEA BOF is to confirm rough consensus on = the NEA=20 problem statement, on the importance of forming an IETF Working Group to = address=20 the problems described in that document, and on the proposed charter for = such a=20 Working Group. Further, the NEA BOF will verify that there are enough=20 participants to make the NEA effort a success.
 
NEA BOF = participants are=20 expected to have read the documents listed below before the BOF meeting. = Discussion of these documents before the BOF meeting is strongly=20 encouraged. It will take place = on the=20 nea@ietf.org mailing lis
 
Proposed NEA=20 Charter
<See below>
 
Network Endpoint = Assessment (NEA)=20 Problem Statement=20
draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt
 
Mailing=20 List
https://www1.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/nea
------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------=
Proposed NEA WG=20 Charter
 
Architectures = have been=20 implemented in the industry to assess the software or hardware=20 configuration of endpoint devices for the purposes of monitoring or = enforcing compliance of endpoints to an organization's policy for = access to=20 the network. These architectures are not fully interoperable = since some of=20 the protocols used to implement the architecture are not=20 standards.
 
The first = purpose of the=20 proposed working group is to define requirements for the protocols = needed to=20 ensure interoperability in an NEA system. The second purpose of the = working=20 group is to ensure standardization of protocols that meet these=20 requirements. In some cases, = these=20 protocols may best be standardized in another working group. Therefore, = the=20 proposed working group will work with the area directors to determine = the best=20 way to complete this standardization effort (in the proposed working = group or in=20 another one).
 
The scope of = the initial=20 charter is on the following protocols that=20 support architectures for network endpoint assessment (as described in=20 draft-thomson-nea-problem-statement-00.txt):
 
1. IF-PB = (posture=20 broker protocol)
2. IF-PTa (EAP method suitable for carrying posture = information as well as supporting=20 authentication)
3. IF-PTb (EAP over IP transport protocol)
4. IF-NAE = (Radius=20 attributes for network access enforcement)
 
Other = interfaces  that=20 may be included in the charter at a later date = include:
--- IF-PA = (posture=20 attribute protocol)
--- IF-SB=20 (Protocol between server broker = and=20 posture server. Name of interface = TBD in problem-statement=20 I-D. )
 
Note that the = initial scope=20 of the WG targets architectures that use the EAP/Radius framework for = IF-PT=20 (posture transport interface) and IF-NAE (network access enforcement = interface).=20 This does not preclude the = standardization=20 of other posture transport=20 protocols or network authorization protocols in the future, but = this is not=20 part of the initial charter.
 
Work will be = carried out in=20 two phases. In the first phase, the WG will=20 define requirements for each of the protocols identified in 1) - 4) = above. When=20 the requirements have been defined, this WG=20 will work with the responsible ADs to identify the = appropriate=20 WG for meeting these=20 requirements.
 
Milestones:
 
June 2006:
* Submit = requirements=20 I-D to IETF  including 
--- requirements for IF-PTa=20 (EAP method layer)=20
--- requirements for IF-NAE
 
September=20 2006:
* Submit = revised=20 requirements I-D to IETF that includes above = plus:
--- = requirements=20 for IF -PTb (EAP = over IP transport layer e.g. EAP over UDP, EAP over=20 TLS)
--- = requirements=20 for IF-PB
 
December 2006:=20
* Review = ongoing work in=20 IETF (e.g. EMU WG, Radext WG, PANA WG, NEA WG) and work with ADs to = identify the=20 WG responsible for accommodating protocol requirements that are not = currently=20 being met.
 
Feb=20 2007:
* Submit  = requirements=20 I-D to IESG for publication as Info RFC
* Revise WG = charter to=20 accommodate definition of protocols not covered in other WGs e.g. = IF-PB
* Submit I-D=20 on  protocols to be defined in this WG e.g. IF-PB=20 specification
 
= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C628F8.DA61082F-- --===============1251090045== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --===============1251090045==--