From nea-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 05 14:41:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRCwK-0001Jp-Je; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:41:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRCwJ-0001Jk-G1 for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:41:11 -0400 Received: from ksgvideo.harvard.edu ([128.103.190.42] helo=ksglist.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRCwJ-0003gA-0i for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:41:11 -0400 Received: from ksg.harvard.edu (ksgmail2.harvard.edu [128.103.190.33]) by ksglist.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA29E9DDF1 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:56:22 -0400 (EDT) To: nea@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.2 June 01, 2004 Message-ID: From: kevin_amorin@harvard.edu Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:40:39 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on KSGMTA/KSG(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 04/05/2006 02:40:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248 Subject: [Nea] Problem statement - comments/questions 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Hello, I have a few questions/comment about the problem statement. I'm new to the list so I apologize if these have been addressed previously. I understand the problem statement has served its propose for the BOF, but these comments could be helpful for the upcoming requirements document(s). [Section 4. Goals] "Support endpoint re-assessment when state of endpoints change, or rules in the NEA server change" In the situation of a non NEA client based system, how is the change of state on the end point known? Can you include a periodic re-check for non NEA client based system? [Section 4. Goals] "Support endpoints with a NEA client and without a client" You may want to rephrase this to support for all network endpoints? This would include non 802.1x hosts, non browser based systems (xboxes, embedded systems), unless there is a minimum host requirement for participating in NEA [Section 6] I think someone already brought this up but shouldn't the IF-PV arrow in the diagram be pointing vertical? [Section 6.1 Table 1] Would it make sense to map NEA terminology to existing RFC definitions? Network Access Authority = Policy Decision Point (RFC 2753 & RFC 3198) Network Enforcer = Policy Enforcement Point (RFC 2753 & RFC 3198) NEA Client = Subject (RFC 3198) .... While there isn't a direct one to one mapping between all elements it would be nice to reference existing IETF work. It may also be beneficial to link to the RFCs in section 2 where NEA terminology is defined. [Section 6.2.1.1 Client Broker] "Determining from Posture collectors when posture has changed and triggering re-assessment where supported by the underlying transport" It may be beneficial to allow the NEA server to trigger a re-assessment. [Section 7 Scope of Standardization] Posture attributes interface (IF-PA): Will the format and syntax for the attributes be defined in IF-PA? Will all vendors be required to follow this syntax, including vendor proprietary attributes? [Section 7 Scope of Standardization] "The proposed initial scope of the NEA effort is the following: IF-PTT IF-PTC" Are you planning on defining the general IF-PT interface in addition to the specific subprotocols in an EAP instantiation? Great work, interoperability standards in network access control are desperately needed. Best, Kevin Amorin, CISSP Sr. Security & Network Engineer KAmorin@Harvard.edu JFK School of Government Harvard University _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 06 11:55:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRWpH-0001CF-4C; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:55:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRWpG-0001CA-Hi for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:55:14 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRWpF-0005HW-BW for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:55:14 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id o37so180246nzf for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:55:12 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MIChhegtDwl+/3JLaj21idEqqqZ/MuJmW1QsywHjR7KDUwLxTjGU2K4gYyEBuLE4kGy8GK9lRMMx/z1plzCgeIyHbRnQEJCPaOT2uOD9KIteJ6b1TKIR3PEObA4S99BNe9UBnwfJezLW/9XTRC6p19WnHvlRqrfipQm3QqmpN2w= Received: by 10.64.96.6 with SMTP id t6mr469093qbb; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.3.19 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 08:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:55:12 -0300 From: "Carlos Martinez" To: nea@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Nea] Problem statement - comments/questions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Sorry about entering the discussion this late: On 4/5/06, kevin_amorin@harvard.edu wrote: > > > [Section 4. Goals] > "Support endpoints with a NEA client and without a client" > > You may want to rephrase this to support for all network endpoints= ? > This would include non 802.1x hosts, non browser based systems (xboxes, > embedded systems), unless there is a minimum host requirement for > participating in NEA > I understand that this means "support endpoints with or withoug NEA clients". What should be done with these clientless endpoints should be up to the policies at the site. And I'm a bit confused about the mention of "non-browser based systems". I always supposed that it was obvious that NEA should not make any assumptions outside the fact that the endpoints have some kind of connectivity and may have a NEA client installed. I was at IETF 65 and there I thought that everyone was thinking along this line. regards Carlos Martinez _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 06 13:19:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRY8f-0007j9-EH; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:19:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRY8e-0007j4-G8 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:19:20 -0400 Received: from ksgvideo.harvard.edu ([128.103.190.42] helo=ksglist.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRY8d-0008Qy-9x for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:19:20 -0400 Received: from ksg.harvard.edu (ksgmail2.harvard.edu [128.103.190.33]) by ksglist.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9739DD46; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:34:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Nea] Problem statement - comments/questions To: carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.2 June 01, 2004 Message-ID: From: kevin_amorin@harvard.edu Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:19:06 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on KSGMTA/KSG(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 04/06/2006 01:18:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: nea@ietf.org 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org > I understand that this means "support endpoints with or withoug NEA > clients". What should be done with these clientless endpoints should > be up to the policies at the site. > > And I'm a bit confused about the mention of "non-browser based > systems". I always supposed that it was obvious that NEA should not > make any assumptions outside the fact that the endpoints have some > kind of connectivity and may have a NEA client installed. > >I was at IETF 65 and there I thought that everyone was thinking along >this line. I think this question may have been brought up by Amardeep Sibia and Tatiana in the BOF. What should be done with clients that do not speak EAP? The NEA group could define an additional IF-PT method. An example could be TLS. In that case a person could develop a Java applet that can do IF-PA, IF-PB and communicate that information over SSL (IF-PT) to the NEA Server. This would be an attractive option for the non NEA agent based hosts. Kevin _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 06 13:32:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRYLE-0004IG-EL; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:32:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRYLC-0004I8-KO for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:32:18 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21] helo=azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRYLA-0000Ns-5b for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:32:18 -0400 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2006 10:32:15 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx331.fm.intel.com (HELO fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([132.233.42.156]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2006 10:32:15 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,93,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="20031933:sNHT62052788" Received: from fmsmsx311.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.214]) by fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:32:14 -0700 Received: from hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.127.2.60]) by fmsmsx311.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:32:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] Problem statement - comments/questions Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <5404AEB459F8354F81995E038F34320002CC9B80@hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Problem statement - comments/questions Thread-Index: AcZZnkIxj/przujlSvCd3UGvqK+iowAAThiw From: "Blumenthal, Uri" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2006 17:32:14.0030 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AF7F6E0:01C659A0] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: nea@ietf.org 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org When we come down to what mechanism should transport our messages - we'll decide whether it is EAP and what to do if it isn't. For now we can safely assume that there is or will be a method that will do the job (EAP is an existing example of such). As for "non-NEA based hosts" - it does sound weird at the NEA list. If you mean "non-EAP hosts" - the answer is "we'll see" - way too early to consider it now. -----Original Message----- From: kevin_amorin@harvard.edu [mailto:kevin_amorin@harvard.edu]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:19 PM To: carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Nea] Problem statement - comments/questions > I understand that this means "support endpoints with or withoug NEA > clients". What should be done with these clientless endpoints should > be up to the policies at the site. > > And I'm a bit confused about the mention of "non-browser based > systems". I always supposed that it was obvious that NEA should not > make any assumptions outside the fact that the endpoints have some > kind of connectivity and may have a NEA client installed. > >I was at IETF 65 and there I thought that everyone was thinking along >this line. I think this question may have been brought up by Amardeep Sibia and Tatiana in the BOF. What should be done with clients that do not speak EAP? The NEA group could define an additional IF-PT method. An example could be TLS. In that case a person could develop a Java applet that can do IF-PA, IF-PB and communicate that information over SSL (IF-PT) to the NEA Server. This would be an attractive option for the non NEA agent based hosts. Kevin _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 10:16:54 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRrle-0002jn-9T; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:16:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRrlc-0002jh-B9 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:16:52 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRrlc-0006Fh-3P for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:16:52 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.funk.com) ([172.25.68.102]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 07:16:52 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,97,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="541650367:sNHT28425712" Received: by MAIL2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:15:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: Steve Hanna To: nea@ietf.org Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:16:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, there were several clear messages: 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. 2) We need clear interoperability goals. 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of posture attributes to allow any client and server to have some interoperability. 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft NEA security analysis 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 12:19:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRtgM-0001N6-3Y; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:19:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRtgK-0001N1-Hl for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:19:32 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21] helo=azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRtgJ-0002Le-51 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:19:32 -0400 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 09:19:26 -0700 Received: from orsmsx331.jf.intel.com (HELO orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([192.168.65.56]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 09:19:25 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,98,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="20483057:sNHT143792397" Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:19:24 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] Next steps for NEA Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:19:22 -0700 Message-ID: <96E39AF1B99FDC47A38DDAB22C3E70CA0774B9EF@orsmsx408> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Thread-Index: AcZaTmaw47uhWN7RQzmteYxsFJ7OBQAD8PGQ From: "Sahita, Ravi" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2006 16:19:24.0450 (UTC) FILETIME=[08E8B820:01C65A5F] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve, Can you expand on the security analysis item in the action plan - My opinion is that security requirements/considerations would be part of PA, PB, PTT etc.=20 Additionally, after the requirements, there should also be a draft that covers some canonical architecture (informational draft if required) that should cover terminology also. I would like to brainstorm on PA and PB requirement draft and will be glad to work with others who are interested to draft these. Cheers, Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, there were several clear messages: 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. 2) We need clear interoperability goals. 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of posture attributes to allow any client and server to have some interoperability. 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft NEA security analysis 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 14:45:23 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRvxT-0000Zg-9g; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:45:23 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRvxR-0000Zb-Mx for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:45:21 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRvxR-00014E-Cm for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:45:21 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.funk.com) ([172.25.68.22]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 11:45:20 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,98,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="541705692:sNHT25953618" Received: by mail.funk.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:48:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Steve Hanna To: "Sahita, Ravi" , nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:45:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Ravi, Security requirements will definitely need to be part of the requirements for PA, PB, and PTT. And security measures that address those requirements will need to be part of any follow-on protocol specifications. But what I had in mind with item D) below is a top-to-bottom security analysis of the entire NEA architecture. When we did this for TNC, we found things that would have been missed if you only considered each protocol individually. Maybe I should rephrase item D) as "Draft security analysis of entire NEA system". Hmmm, an NEA architecture. We have been trying to avoid defining a new endpoint integrity architecture because there are too many already. But section 6 of the problem statement already includes something very much like an architecture and it's probably useful to preserve that in an RFC form. Do you think it would be sufficient to refine the problem statement and submit that for Informational? Consider yourself signed up to work on PA and PB requirements. Thank you! We have a lot of other people signed up also. There's definitely strong interest in this work. Take care, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Sahita, Ravi [mailto:ravi.sahita@intel.com] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:19 PM > To: Steve Hanna; nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA > > Steve, > > Can you expand on the security analysis item in the action plan - My > opinion is that security requirements/considerations would be part of > PA, PB, PTT etc. > > Additionally, after the requirements, there should also be a > draft that > covers some canonical architecture (informational draft if required) > that should cover terminology also. > > I would like to brainstorm on PA and PB requirement draft and will be > glad to work with others who are interested to draft these. > > Cheers, > Ravi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA > > Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, > there were > several clear messages: > > 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. > > 2) We need clear interoperability goals. > > 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of > posture attributes to allow any client and server > to have some interoperability. > > 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. > > 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. > > Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action > plan below. > Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ------ > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > D) Draft NEA security analysis > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 19:43:43 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0cA-0001MI-Tc; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0c9-0001MD-6o for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:41 -0400 Received: from palrel11.hp.com ([156.153.255.246]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0c3-0002Gu-Sj for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:41 -0400 Received: from cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.92.1.67]) by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419C136142; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.92.1.35]) by cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:43:05 -0700 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] Next steps for NEA Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Thread-Index: AcZaTe6cbUeoaiVLSU6S8g22PFGp6gATuzhw From: "Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve)" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2006 23:43:05.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[04427F70:01C65A9D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Do you have any opinions on dates these various efforts should target. I assume the desire is to shoot for a BoF at the next IETF. Right? MS=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA >=20 > Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter,=20 > there were several clear messages: >=20 > 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. >=20 > 2) We need clear interoperability goals. >=20 > 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of > posture attributes to allow any client and server > to have some interoperability. >=20 > 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. >=20 > 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. >=20 > Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action=20 > plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve >=20 > ------ >=20 > Proposed NEA Action Plan >=20 > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. >=20 > 2) Work on these items in parallel: >=20 > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT >=20 > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > D) Draft NEA security analysis >=20 > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 19:53:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0m1-0006kt-KD; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:53:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0lz-0006ko-Hf for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:53:51 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.202]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS0ly-0002Yc-A1 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:53:51 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so492177nzd for ; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:53:49 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=U2okWzDZKx8ObBoWL67aNtBXbSs2PFO3Ragt0Dn9JfFreIxsTTLEqgodwf596b7vewY0zh91KjD3sYmX9Uk5RKIRAWLiQT5ib1WIeW1Q7DxrBsMPwrqaWIxwpy4AA5EY4ngtGUbTVIZLRUqVwhNBQLg9As22pOeSOD5iELj6XAE= Received: by 10.36.33.4 with SMTP id g4mr2414527nzg; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.41.9 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:53:46 -0700 From: "Sean Convery" To: nea@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Nea] Next steps for NEA In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org If we get consensus on a revised charter and complete the work items can we have the WG formed without waiting on the next meeting? Not sure if that is allowed or not based on the way the IETF operates. Thanks, Sean On 4/7/06, Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) wrote: > > Do you have any opinions on dates these various efforts should target. > I assume the desire is to shoot for a BoF at the next IETF. Right? > > MS > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net] > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM > > To: nea@ietf.org > > Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA > > > > Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, > > there were several clear messages: > > > > 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. > > > > 2) We need clear interoperability goals. > > > > 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of > > posture attributes to allow any client and server > > to have some interoperability. > > > > 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. > > > > 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. > > > > Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action > > plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > > ------ > > > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > D) Draft NEA security analysis > > > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > > for a WG to be created > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 20:25:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1GN-0001O8-DQ; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1GM-0001O3-AE for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:14 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20] helo=orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1GL-0003nd-VF for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:25:14 -0400 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 17:25:13 -0700 Received: from orsmsx331.jf.intel.com (HELO orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([192.168.65.56]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2006 17:25:13 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,101,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="20792940:sNHT21517132" Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:25:12 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] Next steps for NEA Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:25:09 -0700 Message-ID: <96E39AF1B99FDC47A38DDAB22C3E70CA077871CE@orsmsx408> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Thread-Index: AcZac3HKs7+CFHP5Qj+T2zUHB+W+cwALxJKA From: "Sahita, Ravi" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2006 00:25:12.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6AEE060:01C65AA2] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve, Yes - always helps to have the problem statement recorded in a draft. On the architecture side, I was suggesting a canonical (or simplified) version that explains the scope of the elements in NEA's scope. I'm ok if this is part of the problem statement draft itself. Glad to hear other folks are also signed up for PA/PB requirements, Thanks, Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:45 AM To: Sahita, Ravi; nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Ravi, Security requirements will definitely need to be part of the requirements for PA, PB, and PTT. And security measures that address those requirements will need to be part of any follow-on protocol specifications. But what I had in mind with item D) below is a top-to-bottom security analysis of the entire NEA architecture. When we did this for TNC, we found things that would have been missed if you only considered each protocol individually. Maybe I should rephrase item D) as "Draft security analysis of entire NEA system". Hmmm, an NEA architecture. We have been trying to avoid defining a new endpoint integrity architecture because there are too many already. But section 6 of the problem statement already includes something very much like an architecture and it's probably useful to preserve that in an RFC form. Do you think it would be sufficient to refine the problem statement and submit that for Informational? Consider yourself signed up to work on PA and PB requirements. Thank you! We have a lot of other people signed up also. There's definitely strong interest in this work. Take care, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Sahita, Ravi [mailto:ravi.sahita@intel.com] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:19 PM > To: Steve Hanna; nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA >=20 > Steve, >=20 > Can you expand on the security analysis item in the action plan - My=20 > opinion is that security requirements/considerations would be part of=20 > PA, PB, PTT etc. >=20 > Additionally, after the requirements, there should also be a draft=20 > that covers some canonical architecture (informational draft if=20 > required) that should cover terminology also. >=20 > I would like to brainstorm on PA and PB requirement draft and will be=20 > glad to work with others who are interested to draft these. >=20 > Cheers, > Ravi >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA >=20 > Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, there=20 > were several clear messages: >=20 > 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. >=20 > 2) We need clear interoperability goals. >=20 > 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of > posture attributes to allow any client and server > to have some interoperability. >=20 > 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. >=20 > 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. >=20 > Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action plan=20 > below. > Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve >=20 > ------ >=20 > Proposed NEA Action Plan >=20 > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. >=20 > 2) Work on these items in parallel: >=20 > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT >=20 > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > D) Draft NEA security analysis >=20 > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 07 20:59:10 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1nC-0003Jx-NW; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:59:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1nB-0003CY-2c for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:59:09 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FS1n9-0004kh-NT for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:59:09 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl2-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k380x56h093463 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:59:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:59:03 -0700 To: nea@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org At 4:53 PM -0700 4/7/06, Sean Convery wrote: >If we get consensus on a revised charter and complete the work items >can we have the WG formed without waiting on the next meeting? Yes. BOFs are optional. Some WGs start with no BOFs, some with just one, many with two, some with more than two (rules are bent). It is really between you (for some value of "you") and your sponsoring Area Director. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 09 17:37:27 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FShb4-0002wz-OF; Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:37:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSK3D-00022B-DY for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:28:55 -0400 Received: from [207.47.37.170] (helo=SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FSK3C-00018Q-1m for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:28:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 13:28:45 -0700 Message-ID: <126EBB1F0092E14B9E595D03263235AA805AB3@SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Text for NEA? Thread-Index: AcZY2/tnyTF0VaMmRM6g+1OYe3L3jAAX+75gAEwFy6AACd7eYA== From: "Joseph Tardo" To: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6c03b24ff9075158b14f74498a5ea0c7 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:37:25 -0400 Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] RE: Text for NEA? 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="===============1005160069==" Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1005160069== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C65B4B.0D0CB5EB" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C65B4B.0D0CB5EB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, =20 I have made an attempt to capture my understanding of the different approaches in terms of processing "phases" in order to compare them for commonality and derive interoperability points. This table is intended to emphasize the concepts, recognizing that it might benefit from an edit to use more NEA-like terminology (which is probably going to be the subject of many discussions). It is also based on high level descriptions from vendors; it would be nice if Cisco, Juniper, or Microsoft in particular corrected any misconceptions. =20 Phase 802.1X fixed or wireless (NAC, TNC) IKE EAP authentication IPsec NAP Quarantine (?) SSL (Juniper?, others) Initiation Normal EAPOL exchange between supplicant in endpoint and authenticator in network access device enforcement point IKE protocol between initiator and VPN gateway, initiator includes an EAP entity. Endpoint client local service initiates HTTPS session to verification server. The client has a method to locate the verification server. Endpoint agent initiates HTTPS session to verification server. This can use http redirection at an intermediate point to demand download the agent. Measurement Posture broker collects measurement values, multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with supplicant Posture broker collects measurement values, multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with initiator EAP entity. Posture broker collects measurement values, multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with client local service Posture broker collects measurement values, multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with agent Reporting Attributes within EAP used to carry PB frames end-to-end between supplicant and AAA server Attributes within EAP used to carry PB frames end-to-end between EAP entity and AAA server HTTP content used to carry PB frames between client and server HTTP content frames carry PB frames between agent and server Verification AAA server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains evaluations for measurement values AAA server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains evaluations for measurement values Server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains evaluations for measurement values Server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains evaluations for measurement values Enforcement AAA server sends status to network access device enforcement point using AAA protocol attributes. Enforcement point determines access control policy based on this result. AAA server also returns status to endpoint in inner EAP attributes AAA server sends status to VPN gateway using AAA protocol attributes. VPN gateway determines access control policy based on this result. AAA server also returns status to endpoint in inner EAP attributes Server returns status and, if success, X.509 "health certificate". Endpoint provides certificate to IKE, which uses it to negotiate IPsec keys directly with application server. Server's local policy requires a valid health certificate=20 Server returns status to the agent and also sends status to an intermediate policy enforcement point, such as a firewall or secure router. Enforcement point determines access control policy based on this result. =20 These are not exhaustive of all known approaches, by the way, but I think the others can be similarly phased. =20 Comparing the phases (and paraphrasing your email): * Initiation - completely depends on the approach * Measurement - can use common attributes but interfaces depend on the implementation * Reporting - can use common elements carried over different protocols * Verification - can use common attributes but interfaces depend on the implementation * Enforcement - can use common actions, but actual enforcement depends heavily on the approach =20 When you look at the common elements across all approaches, you get: * PA (which is syntax for instrumentation data) * PB (which multiplexes PA into protocol frames with control and status) * Status and actions(which are accept, reject, or quarantine, maybe with embellishments) =20 Taking things to the next level, e.g., specific attributes for RADIUS/Diameter or HTTP content/agent types, has real potential for interoperability benefit but only for a subset of approaches. To show some commonality for EAP, for example, other EAP users use would be helpful. This could be NACP, for example, =20 Personally I would like to de-mystify the stuff in the PA as the PV functionality is not rocket science. In particular, I would like to see minimum policy control requirements at the verification end. =20 Thanks, --Joe =20 -----Original Message----- From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:28 PM To: Joseph Tardo Cc: Steve Hanna Subject: RE: Text for NEA? =20 Hi Joe =20 Thanks for this. Looks good.=20 =20 I think this would be especially helpful if we can use it to clarify which NEA protocols are common across architectures and which are architecture-specific. =20 Based on my understanding of the phases, the mapping would look as follows: =20 Reporting phase: --- Common across architectures --- Uses PA and PB protocols --- Interop Requirements: PA and PB =20 Initiation, Enforcement phases: --- Architecture-specific.=20 --- In EAP instantiation, initiation is through e.g. 802.1x + EAP tunneling method, and enforcement e.g. through RADIUS, Diameter. Interop requirements at minimim include EAP tunneling method. --- In other instantiations of architecture, interoperability is outside of initial scope. =20 Measurement phase: --- Implementation-specific. No interoperabilty requirements =20 Does this make sense? =20 Regarding your examples below, I would rather redo the NAC EAPoUDP example as a more generic EAP architecture example based on .1x (since this is common across more vendors and is where we will have standardization and interop first given the initial WG scope). In addition, it may be useful to have a 3rd example, which is not EAP-based, but where the enforcement is in the network, e.g. SSL-based example.=20 =20 One more comment inline, prefixed by [Susan]. =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Tardo [mailto:joseph.tardo@nevisnetworks.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:57 AM To: Susan Thomson (sethomso) Cc: Steve Hanna; Joseph Tardo Subject: RE: Text for NEA? =20 Susan, =20 What I was thinking at IETF was something that might help unify the various seemingly incompatible approaches out there by providing a common framework as follows: =20 0. Initiation phase - a measurement cycle is initiated by some event, such as network attachment or a request from a measurement entity. =20 1. Measurement phase - instrumentation in the end system collects measurement values for evaluation. =20 2. Reporting phase - measurements are marshaled and then communicated to to a verification entity, which evaluates them for policy conformance =20 3. Enforcement phase - depending on the evaluation, an enforcement action is taken at an enforcement point. This can vary depending on the architecture. =20 Examples: --------- NAC EApoUDP Microsoft IPsec Quarantine =20 Initiation Router detects packet, Client starts, quarantine agent Connects to agent contacts quarantine server =20 [Susan] In the EAP instantiation, the initiation phase would includes the EAP tunnel establishment, correct? In other words, "agent connects to server" would also be part of the EAP column? =20 Thanks Susan =20 Measurement Agent reads posture quarantine agent reads health Values values =20 Reporting Agent sends posture agent sends values to server values to verifier server returns result and and gets back result X.509 cert =20 Enforcement Router ACLs set to IPsec client users cert to block or allow establish IKE tunnel, enforcement point at server tunnel endpoint =20 Similar tables can be done for TNC/dot1x and Juniper Infranet. =20 This is nice modeling but doesn't do much to promote interoperability. =20 Hope this helps, if so I'll put it into a contribution of some sort. =20 Thanks, --Joe ------_=_NextPart_001_01C65B4B.0D0CB5EB Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Susan,

 

I have made an attempt to capture my understanding of the = different approaches in terms of processing “phases” in order to = compare them for commonality and derive interoperability points. This table is = intended to emphasize the concepts, recognizing that it might benefit from an edit to use more = NEA-like terminology (which is probably going to be the subject of many = discussions). It is also based on high level descriptions from vendors; it would be nice = if Cisco, Juniper, or Microsoft in particular corrected any = misconceptions.

 

Phase

802.1X fixed or wireless = (NAC, TNC)

IKE EAP = authentication

IPsec NAP Quarantine = (?)

SSL (Juniper?, others)

Initiation

Normal EAPOL exchange between supplicant in = endpoint and authenticator in network access device enforcement = point

IKE protocol between = initiator and VPN gateway, initiator includes an EAP = entity.

Endpoint client local = service initiates HTTPS session to verification server. The client has a = method to locate the verification server.

Endpoint agent initiates HTTPS session to = verification server. This can use http redirection at an intermediate point to = demand download the agent.

Measurement

Posture broker collects measurement values, = multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with supplicant

Posture broker collects measurement values, = multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with initiator EAP = entity.

Posture broker collects measurement values, = multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with client local = service

Posture broker collects measurement values, = multiplexes into PB frames, and interfaces with agent

Reporting

Attributes within EAP used to carry PB frames = end-to-end between supplicant and AAA server

Attributes within EAP used to carry PB frames = end-to-end between EAP entity and AAA server

HTTP content used to carry PB frames between client = and server

HTTP content frames carry PB frames between agent = and server

Verification

AAA server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains = evaluations for measurement values

AAA server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains = evaluations for measurement values

Server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains = evaluations for measurement values

Server de-multiplexes PB frames, obtains = evaluations for measurement values

Enforcement

AAA server sends status to network access device enforcement point using AAA protocol attributes. Enforcement point = determines access control policy based on this result. AAA server also returns = status to endpoint in inner EAP attributes

AAA server sends status to VPN gateway using AAA = protocol attributes. VPN gateway determines access control policy based on this result. AAA server also returns status to endpoint in inner EAP = attributes

Server returns status and, if success, X.509 = “health certificate”. Endpoint provides certificate to IKE, which uses = it to negotiate IPsec keys directly with application server. Server’s = local policy requires a valid health certificate =

Server returns status to the agent and also sends = status to an intermediate policy enforcement point, such as a firewall or secure = router. Enforcement point determines access control policy based on this = result.

 

These are not exhaustive of all known approaches, by the way, = but I think the others can be similarly phased.

 

Comparing the phases (and paraphrasing your = email):

·         Initiation – = completely depends on the approach

·         Measurement – can use = common attributes but interfaces depend on the implementation

·         Reporting – can use = common elements carried over different protocols

·         Verification – can = use common attributes but interfaces depend on the = implementation

·         Enforcement – can use = common actions, but actual enforcement depends heavily on the = approach

 

When you look at the common elements across all approaches, you = get:

·         PA (which is syntax for = instrumentation data)

·         PB (which multiplexes PA = into protocol frames with control and status)

·         Status and actions(which = are accept, reject, or quarantine, maybe with embellishments)

 

Taking things to the next level, e.g., specific attributes for = RADIUS/Diameter or HTTP content/agent types, has real potential for interoperability = benefit but only for a subset of approaches. To show some commonality for EAP, = for example, other EAP users use would be helpful. This could be NACP, for = example,

 

Personally I would like to de-mystify the stuff in the PA as the = PV functionality is not rocket science. In particular, I would like to see minimum policy control requirements at the verification = end.

 

Thanks,

--Joe

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:28 PM
To: Joseph Tardo
Cc: Steve Hanna
Subject: RE: Text for NEA?

 

Hi Joe

 

Thanks for this. Looks good.

 

I think this would be especially helpful if we can use it to = clarify

which NEA protocols are common across architectures and which = are

architecture-specific.

 

Based on my understanding of the phases, the mapping would look = as

follows:

 

Reporting phase:

--- Common across architectures

--- Uses PA and PB protocols

--- Interop Requirements: PA and PB

 

Initiation, Enforcement phases:

--- Architecture-specific.

--- In EAP instantiation, initiation is through e.g. 802.1x + = EAP

tunneling method, and enforcement e.g. through RADIUS, Diameter. Interop

requirements at minimim include EAP tunneling = method.

--- In other instantiations of architecture, interoperability is outside

of initial scope.

 

Measurement phase:

--- Implementation-specific. No interoperabilty = requirements

 

Does this make sense?

 

Regarding your examples below, I would rather redo the NAC = EAPoUDP

example  as a more generic EAP architecture example based = on .1x (since

this is  common across more vendors and is where we will = have

standardization and interop first given the initial WG scope). = In

addition, it may be useful to have a 3rd example, which is = not

EAP-based, but where the enforcement is in the network, e.g. = SSL-based

example.

 

One more comment inline, prefixed by = [Susan].

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Joseph Tardo [mailto:joseph.tardo@nevisnetworks.com] =

Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:57 = AM

To: Susan Thomson (sethomso)

Cc: Steve Hanna; Joseph Tardo

Subject: RE: Text for NEA?

 

Susan,

 

What I was thinking at IETF was something that might help unify = the

various seemingly incompatible approaches out there by providing = a

common framework as follows:

 

0. Initiation phase - a measurement cycle is initiated by some = event,

such as network attachment or a request from a measurement = entity.

 

1. Measurement phase - instrumentation in the end system = collects

measurement values for evaluation.

 

2. Reporting phase - measurements are marshaled and then = communicated to

to a verification entity, which evaluates them for policy = conformance

 

3. Enforcement phase - depending on the evaluation, an = enforcement

action is taken at an enforcement point. This can vary depending = on the

architecture.

 

Examples:

---------

           = ;       NAC = EApoUDP           =   Microsoft IPsec

Quarantine

 

Initiation     Router detects = packet,     Client starts,

quarantine agent

           = ;       Connects to agent       = contacts

quarantine server

 

[Susan] In the EAP instantiation, the initiation phase would = includes

the EAP tunnel establishment, correct? In other words,  "agent connects

to server" would also be part of the EAP = column?

 

Thanks

Susan

 

Measurement       Agent reads = posture     quarantine agent reads

health

           = ;            = = Values           &= nbsp;      values

 

Reporting         Agent = sends posture     agent sends values = to

server

           = ;        values to verifier     server returns = result

and

           = ;        and gets back result   X.509 cert

 

Enforcement       Router ACLs set to     IPsec client users = cert

to

           = ;        block or allow         establish IKE = tunnel,

enforcement

           = ;            =             &= nbsp;      point at server

tunnel endpoint

 

Similar tables can be done for TNC/dot1x and Juniper = Infranet.

 

This is nice modeling but doesn't do much to promote = interoperability.

 

Hope this helps, if so I'll put it into a contribution of some = sort.

 

Thanks,

--Joe

------_=_NextPart_001_01C65B4B.0D0CB5EB-- --===============1005160069== 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 --===============1005160069==-- From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 13 17:41:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9Za-000102-Gq; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:41:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9ZY-0000zx-Nc for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:41:52 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9ZY-0004pg-E9 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:41:52 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.funk.com) ([172.25.68.22]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2006 14:41:51 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,118,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="543148847:sNHT22773068" Received: by mail.funk.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:45:12 -0400 Message-ID: From: Steve Hanna To: "Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve)" , nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:41:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Once the items listed under 2) are ready, we will go back to the ADs and see if another BOF is needed or if we can go straight to WG status. To have a BOF at the next IETF, we'd need to have things ready by the end of May. That's ambitious but possible. In the interest of moving forward and maintaining momentum, I will send out a final call for feedback on the action plan. Assuming we have agreement on that, we'll move forward: get volunteers to draft the requirements and security analysis, prepare a first draft and put that out for review, etc. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) [mailto:mauricio.sanchez@hp.com] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:43 PM > To: Steve Hanna; nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next steps for NEA > > > Do you have any opinions on dates these various efforts should target. > I assume the desire is to shoot for a BoF at the next IETF. Right? > > MS > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net] > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:17 AM > > To: nea@ietf.org > > Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA > > > > Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, > > there were several clear messages: > > > > 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. > > > > 2) We need clear interoperability goals. > > > > 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of > > posture attributes to allow any client and server > > to have some interoperability. > > > > 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. > > > > 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. > > > > Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action > > plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > > ------ > > > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > D) Draft NEA security analysis > > > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > > for a WG to be created > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 13 17:48:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9gA-00065Y-J8; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:48:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9g8-00065T-V7 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:48:40 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FU9g8-0004w1-No for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:48:40 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.funk.com) ([172.25.68.22]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2006 14:48:40 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,118,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="543151745:sNHT20864420" Received: by mail.funk.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:52:01 -0400 Message-ID: From: Steve Hanna To: nea@ietf.org Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:48:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the plan or suggesting changes. Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 13 18:37:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUAQy-0007fr-12; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:37:04 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUAQw-0007fm-II for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:37:02 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21] helo=azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUAQu-0006v3-53 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:37:02 -0400 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2006 15:36:59 -0700 Received: from orsmsx331.jf.intel.com (HELO orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([192.168.65.56]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2006 15:36:58 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,119,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="22977830:sNHT133765604" Received: from orsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.226.47]) by orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:36:58 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:36:57 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan thread-index: AcZfRAw7gXSyOhDHQkeaeFU36LUPNAABkkCg From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2006 22:36:58.0281 (UTC) FILETIME=[C61F8190:01C65F4A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Hi Steve, Susan Apologies for not replying earlier to this action plan. This looks like a pretty reasonable action plan to me for moving forward. The prioritization looks good, reflects the feedback that was received during the BoF. Lets get started on the work items now :) Regards Hormuzd -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the plan or suggesting changes. Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 13 19:32:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUBId-00088i-KV; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:31 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUBIc-0007kc-34 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:30 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUBIW-0000PA-OF for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:25 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3DNWEMt018952 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:14 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k3DNW3JJ209428 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:03 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3DNW3RE026034 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:03 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-227-99.mts.ibm.com [9.65.227.99]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3DNW3DD026023; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:03 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k3DNW2J1012472; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:02 -0400 Message-Id: <200604132332.k3DNW2J1012472@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Sean Convery" Subject: Re: [Nea] Next steps for NEA In-Reply-To: Message from "Sean Convery" of "Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:53:46 PDT." Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:32:02 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: nea@ietf.org 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org > If we get consensus on a revised charter and complete the work items > can we have the WG formed without waiting on the next meeting? Absolutely. Quoting from draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt: > 5.2. On The Need For A BOF > > This document highlights the need for allowing for and actively > engaging in a broad public discussion on the merits of forming a WG. > It might surprise some, but there is no actual process requirement to > have a BOF prior to forming a WG. The actual process requirement is > simply that the IESG (together with the AD(s) sponsoring the work) > approve a formal charter as described in [RFC2418]. In practice, BOFs > are used to engage the broader community on proposed work and to help > produce an acceptable charter. > > There are two observations that can be made here. First, BOFs are > often held not because they are (strictly speaking) required, but > because it is assumed they are needed or because ADs feel that a BOF > would be beneficial in terms of getting additional public > participation. Hence, those interested in forming a WG should give > serious consideration to using the steps outlined above not just for > the purposes of leading to a BOF, but to convince the IESG and > broader community that a BOF is not even needed, as there is already > demonstrated strong consensus that a WG shold be formed. Second, the > IESG should not forget that BOFs are simply a tool, and may not even > be the best tool in every situation. Aim for a WG before Montreal, but settle for another BOF if that turns out to be necessary. Paul Hoffman writes: > It is really between you (for some value of "you") and your > sponsoring Area Director. Absolutely. Engage with your AD(s) early and often! Thomas _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sat Apr 15 21:13:00 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUvoo-0004Vw-Ir; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:12:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUvon-0004Vr-1D for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:12:49 -0400 Received: from ksgvideo.harvard.edu ([128.103.190.42] helo=ksglist.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUvol-0004zZ-O1 for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:12:48 -0400 Received: from ksg.harvard.edu (ksgmail2.harvard.edu [128.103.190.33]) by ksglist.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73089DD47; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:28:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan To: shanna@juniper.net X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 18, 2003 Message-ID: From: kevin_amorin@harvard.edu Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:12:35 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on KSGMTA/KSG(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 04/15/2006 09:11:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca Cc: nea@ietf.org 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org I support the action plan, and would like to volunteer to help with the PTT requirements draft. Kevin shanna@juniper.net wrote on 04/13/2006 05:48:38 PM: > I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in > response to feedback received on the NEA list > (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security > analysis will cover the entire NEA system). > > If you have anything else to say about the plan, > please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. > > I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating > support for the plan or suggesting changes. > Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ------ > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 16 01:22:59 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUzit-0007FY-2t; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:22:59 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUziC-0006YV-3V for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:22:16 -0400 Received: from [207.47.37.170] (helo=SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUzd4-0004sN-13 for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:17:08 -0400 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:16:50 -0700 Message-ID: <126EBB1F0092E14B9E595D03263235AA84EB95@SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Thread-Index: AcZfRAw7af4ZiMY8Rx2b4UzsnvWcswB0M61A From: "Joseph Tardo" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve, You have my full support on this. I am also planning to work on it. Thanks, --Joe -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the plan or suggesting changes. Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 16 10:33:17 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FV8JK-0000mo-Mb; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:33:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FV8JK-0000mj-5h for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:33:10 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20] helo=orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FV8JF-0001Ul-M4 for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:33:08 -0400 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2006 07:33:02 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx331.fm.intel.com (HELO fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com) ([132.233.42.156]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2006 07:33:02 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,123,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="23739522:sNHT25026484" Received: from fmsmsx312.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.227]) by fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:33:01 -0700 Received: from hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.127.2.60]) by fmsmsx312.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:33:01 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:32:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5404AEB459F8354F81995E038F34320002D8B777@hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Thread-Index: AcZfRAw7af4ZiMY8Rx2b4UzsnvWcswB0M61AABNuqDA= From: "Blumenthal, Uri" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2006 14:33:01.0378 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA04FA20:01C66162] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Likewise.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Tardo [mailto:joseph.tardo@nevisnetworks.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:17 AM To: Steve Hanna; nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Steve, You have my full support on this. I am also planning to work on it. Thanks, --Joe -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the plan or suggesting changes. Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 16 20:37:46 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVHkO-00036z-4B; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:37:44 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVHkN-00036u-Eh for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:37:43 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20] helo=orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVHkM-0007CH-1R for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:37:43 -0400 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2006 17:37:40 -0700 Received: from orsmsx332.jf.intel.com (HELO orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com) ([192.168.65.60]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2006 17:37:40 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,124,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="23813561:sNHT20070141" Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:37:40 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:37:39 -0700 Message-ID: <96E39AF1B99FDC47A38DDAB22C3E70CA07885688@orsmsx408> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Thread-Index: AcZfRAw5fgeqlrqfSrmdhpHIYs9TaQCctr/g From: "Sahita, Ravi" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2006 00:37:40.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[220D6350:01C661B7] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve, I support the plan below, and as I mentioned earlier, would like to volunteer to help with the PA, PB requirements. Cheers, Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the plan or suggesting changes. Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 16 21:31:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVIaV-0000cg-VE; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:31:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVIaU-0000cb-Na for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:31:34 -0400 Received: from ogo.signacert.com ([207.162.214.7] helo=mail.signacert.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVIaT-0000jT-4G for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:31:34 -0400 Received: from [10.194.65.221] (unknown [66.209.15.234]) by mail.signacert.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D27B18EC466; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: SnapperMail 2.3.2.01 by Snapperfish To: "Joseph Tardo" , "Steve Hanna" , Subject: RE: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Message-ID: <5859-SnapperMsgF6E419A5C068A076@[10.194.65.221]> In-Reply-To: <126EBB1F0092E14B9E595D03263235AA84EB95@SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com> References: <126EBB1F0092E14B9E595D03263235AA84EB95@SCES1.sc.nevisnetworks.com> From: Thomas Hardjono Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:30:56 -0700 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 Cc: X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: thardjono@signacert.com List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Yes, Steve, you have my support and will put in some cycles. /thomas/ ___ ---- Sent from a Treo --- ...... Original Message ....... On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:16:50 -0700 "Joseph Tardo" wrote: >Steve, > >You have my full support on this. > >I am also planning to work on it. > >Thanks, >--Joe > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net] >Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM >To: nea@ietf.org >Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan > >I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in >response to feedback received on the NEA list >(changing item 2.D say clearly that the security >analysis will cover the entire NEA system). > >If you have anything else to say about the plan, >please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. > >I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating >support for the plan or suggesting changes. >Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. > >Thanks, > >Steve > >------ > >Proposed NEA Action Plan > >1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > >2) Work on these items in parallel: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > >3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created > >_______________________________________________ >Nea mailing list >Nea@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > >_______________________________________________ >Nea mailing list >Nea@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 17 09:35:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVTtV-0005bI-FG; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:35:57 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVTtT-0005bC-V1 for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:35:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.14.82] helo=hellskitchen.mr.itd.umich.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVTtS-00061e-Ma for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:35:55 -0400 Received: FROM [10.0.0.51] (asd-c-1d8e3.adsl.wanadoo.nl [81.69.246.227]) BY hellskitchen.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 4443997B.43BA3.7384 ; 17 Apr 2006 09:34:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Vollbrecht Subject: Re: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:34:48 -0400 To: Steve Hanna X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Cc: nea@ietf.org 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve - I think this is the right direction and seems to me fits well the direction suggested by the BOF. Just fyi, I am planning to work on editing and filling out the use cases Hormuzd sent out March 30. I am sorry not to be able to get to it sooner, but I am tied up for about another week, and then I expect to have time to work on it. John On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Steve Hanna wrote: > I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in > response to feedback received on the NEA list > (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security > analysis will cover the entire NEA system). > > If you have anything else to say about the plan, > please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. > > I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating > support for the plan or suggesting changes. > Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ------ > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 17 12:55:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX0U-0005U4-9c; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX0T-0005Tz-HE for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:21 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVX0T-0008H6-50 for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:21 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3HGtCCp010597 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:12 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k3HGtCx0233252 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:12 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3HGtCqq009814 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:12 -0400 Received: from d01mlc83.pok.ibm.com (d01mlc83.pok.ibm.com [9.56.228.211]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3HGtCxi009806; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:55:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: Steve Hanna Subject: Re: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF144 February 01, 2006 Message-ID: From: Diana J Arroyo Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:55:09 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MLC83/01/M/IBM(Release 7.0.1 HF2|March 31, 2006) at 04/17/2006 12:55:11, Serialize complete at 04/17/2006 12:55:11 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 612a16ba5c5f570bfc42b3ac5606ac53 Cc: nea@ietf.org 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="===============1284879364==" Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1284879364== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005CF09786257153_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005CF09786257153_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi, Steve, you have my support as well and I will also put in some cycles. Regards, Diana Arroyo Software Engineer, Corporate Security Strategy 512.838.0088 darroyo@us.ibm.com John Vollbrecht 04/17/2006 08:34 AM To Steve Hanna cc nea@ietf.org Subject Re: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Steve - I think this is the right direction and seems to me fits well the direction suggested by the BOF. Just fyi, I am planning to work on editing and filling out the use cases Hormuzd sent out March 30. I am sorry not to be able to get to it sooner, but I am tied up for about another week, and then I expect to have time to work on it. John On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Steve Hanna wrote: > I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in > response to feedback received on the NEA list > (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security > analysis will cover the entire NEA system). > > If you have anything else to say about the plan, > please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. > > I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating > support for the plan or suggesting changes. > Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > ------ > > Proposed NEA Action Plan > > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. > > 2) Work on these items in parallel: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --=_alternative 005CF09786257153_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

Hi, Steve, you have my support as well and I will also put in some cycles.

Regards,
Diana Arroyo
Software Engineer, Corporate Security Strategy
512.838.0088
darroyo@us.ibm.com


John Vollbrecht <jrv@umich.edu>

04/17/2006 08:34 AM

To
Steve Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>
cc
nea@ietf.org
Subject
Re: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan





Steve -

I think this is the right direction and seems to me fits well the  
direction suggested by the BOF.

Just fyi, I am planning to work on editing and filling out the use  
cases Hormuzd sent out March 30.  I am sorry not to be able to get to  
it sooner, but I am tied up for about another week, and then I expect  
to have time to work on it.

John

On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Steve Hanna wrote:

> I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in
> response to feedback received on the NEA list
> (changing item 2.D say clearly that the security
> analysis will cover the entire NEA system).
>
> If you have anything else to say about the plan,
> please send email to nea@ietf.org by Monday.
>
> I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating
> support for the plan or suggesting changes.
> Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> ------
>
> Proposed NEA Action Plan
>
> 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan.
>
> 2) Work on these items in parallel:
>
>  A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT
>
>  B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on
>     transport-independent PA and PB and
>     requirements for PTT
>
>  C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on
>     transport-independent PA and PB and
>     requirements for PTT
>
>  D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system
>
> 3) When we have all or most of those items in
>    good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask
>    for a WG to be created
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>
>


_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
--=_alternative 005CF09786257153_=-- --===============1284879364== 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 --===============1284879364==-- From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 17 13:32:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVXaH-00027A-Cu; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:32:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVXaG-000270-36 for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:32:20 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVXaF-0002Tb-PA for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:32:20 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2006 10:32:19 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,126,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="1795737405:sNHT32456692" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3HHW7VU005068; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-212.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.111]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:32:18 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:32:17 -0400 Message-ID: <9958B444368E884DBB215F3FEF36F5B702153C74@xmb-rtp-212.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Thread-Index: AcZfRA00KQs6AG2/SnehRt5wr8805AC/IbTw From: "Hao Zhou \(hzhou\)" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2006 17:32:18.0104 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFF0DB80:01C66244] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve: I agree on most part of this plan and am willing to put some cycle to it. However, I have a different take on the priorities of the items: 1. B, C, D. I think they are reasonable to be done first. 2. We may need to document the transport-independent generic architecture and various instances of it, e.g., EAP/AAA, TLS, IPSec, etc. I don't know whether that's already planned as part of the problem statement or in a separate architecture draft. I think it should be done before D. 3. A should be put to last, after we have dome some security analysis. I don't think it is critical to have that ready before we propose for WG or another BOF. It could be part of workgroup charter and items to be worked on.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:49 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan >=20 > I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to=20 > feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say=20 > clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). >=20 > If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send=20 > email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. >=20 > I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the=20 > plan or suggesting changes. > Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve >=20 > ------ >=20 > Proposed NEA Action Plan >=20 > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. >=20 > 2) Work on these items in parallel: >=20 > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT >=20 > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system >=20 > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 17 14:00:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVY1v-0004PZ-Mo; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:00:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVY1u-0004PR-Vl for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:00:54 -0400 Received: from gold.veritas.com ([143.127.12.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVY1u-0004N8-4a for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:00:54 -0400 Received: from sxchcon1-int.veritas.com (HELO SVLXCHCON1.enterprise.veritas.com) ([10.137.18.171]) by gold.veritas.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2006 11:00:50 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,126,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="58603347:sNHT31300340" Received: from SVL1XCHEVSPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com ([166.98.169.10]) by SVLXCHCON1.enterprise.veritas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:00:50 -0700 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:00:48 -0700 Message-ID: <5A58F967CBEBBB4A82DF126CF8A9596ABEB955@SVL1XCHCLUPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan thread-index: AcZfRAzNfTAeJJ2SQEGYQpx0fnKcrADBHrhg From: "Paul Sangster" To: "Steve Hanna" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2006 18:00:50.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC554160:01C66248] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hanna [mailto:shanna@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:49 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan >=20 > I have revised the proposed NEA action plan in response to=20 > feedback received on the NEA list (changing item 2.D say=20 > clearly that the security analysis will cover the entire NEA system). >=20 > If you have anything else to say about the plan, please send=20 > email to nea@ietf.org by Monday. >=20 > I'd like to see a bunch of emails indicating support for the=20 > plan or suggesting changes. > Short emails are OK. You needn't write an essay. I'm happy to help with the documents and believe the plan reflects the feedback we heard at the BOF to focus on the more transport independent aspects of the architecture (EAP vs. IPsec and others.) >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve >=20 > ------ >=20 > Proposed NEA Action Plan >=20 > 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. >=20 > 2) Work on these items in parallel: >=20 > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT >=20 > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system >=20 > 3) When we have all or most of those items in > good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask > for a WG to be created >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 18 11:44:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVsNI-0005lD-Az; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:44:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVsNG-0005l3-GG for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:44:18 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVsNF-0005qJ-5S for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:44:18 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2006 08:44:17 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,131,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="269381799:sNHT46471872" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3IFiGYg026645 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-209.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.11]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:44:16 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:44:15 -0400 Message-ID: <711A1D9897F2F04B9C166616EC8ED93E017B25BF@xmb-rtp-209.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: [Nea] LAST CALL on NEA action plan Thread-Index: AcZi/vIuXBTgOZhUTUambAm74o486A== From: "Brian Ford \(brford\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2006 15:44:16.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[F2BF0CE0:01C662FE] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Steve, Thanks for your great work here. I'd certainly like to contribute to the effort to further the action plan. I'd like to volunteer as a contributor and / or reviewer. I think we all need to keep a eye on the problem that NEA is being formed and developed to address. From the problem statement "...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 on access to the network.". Interoperability and standards are great as long as they go towards solving the original problem. "The computer is the first metamedium, and as such it has degrees of freedom for representation and expression never before encountered and as yet barely investigated." Alan Kay Liberty for All, Brian=20 QUOTE Message: 3 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:16:54 -0400 From: Steve Hanna Subject: [Nea] Next steps for NEA To: nea@ietf.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain Although the NEA BOF did not end with consensus on a charter, there were several clear messages: 1) This is important work. Many people spoke about this. 2) We need clear interoperability goals. 3) We should standardize at least a minimal set of posture attributes to allow any client and server to have some interoperability. 4) PA and PB should be transport independent. 5) We should not spend too much time on requirements. Based on these messages, I would like to suggest the action plan below. Comments are welcome on the messages and action plan. Thanks, Steve ------ Proposed NEA Action Plan 1) Discuss, revise, and agree on this action plan. 2) Work on these items in parallel: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT D) Draft NEA security analysis 3) When we have all or most of those items in good shape, schedule another NEA BOF or ask for a WG to be created UNQUOTE ------------------------------ =20 Brian Ford=20 Consulting Engineer Cisco Systems, Inc. http://www.cisco.com =20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 21 16:24:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2Ap-0000hN-6I; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2Ao-0000hI-8p for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:14 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2Al-0004SX-Ty for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:14 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2006 13:24:11 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,146,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="1797548386:sNHT31862938" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3LKNvVS008162 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT) 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, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:04 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:24:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Next Steps on NEA action plan thread-index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZA== From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2006 20:24:04.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[88E56780:01C66581] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for which there seems to be rough consensus. Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D.=20 Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action plan with timelines to kick-off this process. Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined as necessary): Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster, Amerdeep Sibia Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview: Mauricio Sanchez, Joseph Tardo=20 PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita=20 PTT Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou=20 Security Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let Hormuzd, Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this I-D specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing list. C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and Mauricio Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistency with requirements I-D.=20 Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG is formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a starting point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in reqts I-D. D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall requirements I-D in A) above. Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group and BOF meetings=20 June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission=20 With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a week or two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at least B) and C) around May 20.=20 Thanks Susan & Steve=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 21 16:45:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2VS-0004uV-Gr; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:45:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2VR-0004uQ-OB for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:45:33 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2VR-0005S0-Lk for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:45:33 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2VP-0003Xc-I1 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:45:33 -0400 Received: from [85.101.220.122] (helo=sysadmin13c23c) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrelayus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp2t-1FX2VH023q-0001z4; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:45:25 -0400 From: "Alper Yegin" To: "'Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)'" , Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:45:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZAAAtzKw Message-ID: <0MKp2t-1FX2VH023q-0001z4@mrelay.perfora.net> X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net login:abf7a4bb310ea4dfc9b6841113e2970f X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Hi Susan, What's the plan for the PTC? The charter states "Requirements need to be defined for an EAP over L3 transport for L3 access scenarios.". Regards, Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:24 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan > > This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for which > there seems to be rough consensus. > > > Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D. > > Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action > plan with timelines to kick-off this process. > > Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined as > necessary): > > Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster, > Amerdeep Sibia > Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview: Mauricio Sanchez, > Joseph Tardo > PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita > PTT Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou > Security Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal > > Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let Hormuzd, > Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this I-D > specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. > > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT > > Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing > list. > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope > > Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and Mauricio > Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid duplication of effort > and ensure consistency with requirements I-D. > > Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG is > formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a starting > point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in reqts I-D. > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall requirements > I-D in A) above. > > Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: > June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group and > BOF meetings > June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) > submission > > With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a week or > two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at least B) and > C) around May 20. > > > Thanks > Susan & Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 21 17:12:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2vX-0008P0-1M; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:31 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2vW-0008Oq-45 for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:30 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX2vT-0007Fi-IJ for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:30 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2006 14:12:27 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,146,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="26417598:sNHT35784492" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3LLCQTL020161; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] Next Steps on NEA action plan Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:12:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan thread-index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZAAAtzKwAACAoxA= From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" To: "Alper Yegin" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2006 21:12:25.0895 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A0CD370:01C66588] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Based on feedback from the BoF, the initial proposed scope has been reduced to focus on PA, PB, and PTT interfaces, the reasoning being that this is a minimal set to demonstrate interoperability between client and server. Requirements for other interfaces will be revisited when progress has been made on these. The proposed charter will be revised to reflect this. Thanks Susan -----Original Message----- From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org]=20 Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:45 PM To: Susan Thomson (sethomso); nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan Hi Susan, What's the plan for the PTC? The charter states "Requirements need to be defined for an EAP over L3 transport for L3 access scenarios.". Regards, Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:24 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan >=20 > This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for which > there seems to be rough consensus. >=20 >=20 > Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: >=20 > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT >=20 > The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D. >=20 > Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action=20 > plan with timelines to kick-off this process. >=20 > Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined=20 > as > necessary): >=20 > Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster,=20 > Amerdeep Sibia Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview:=20 > Mauricio Sanchez, Joseph Tardo PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita PTT=20 > Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou Security=20 > Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal >=20 > Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let Hormuzd,=20 > Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this I-D=20 > specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. >=20 >=20 > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT >=20 > Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing=20 > list. >=20 > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > transport-independent PA and PB and > requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope >=20 > Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and=20 > Mauricio Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid duplication > of effort and ensure consistency with requirements I-D. >=20 > Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG=20 > is formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a=20 > starting point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in reqts I-D. >=20 > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system >=20 > Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall requirements > I-D in A) above. >=20 > Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: > June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group=20 > and BOF meetings June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial=20 > document (-00) submission >=20 > With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a week=20 > or two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at least B)=20 > and > C) around May 20. >=20 >=20 > Thanks > Susan & Steve >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 21 20:29:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX608-0007LK-Cw; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:29:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX606-0007Ih-EA for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:29:26 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX605-0002hB-0R for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:29:26 -0400 Received: from [85.101.220.122] (helo=sysadmin13c23c) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrelayus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp2t-1FX5zz3VmU-0001xT; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:29:23 -0400 From: "Alper Yegin" To: "'Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)'" , Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:29:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZAAAtzKwAACAoxAAB08MUA== Message-ID: <0MKp2t-1FX5zz3VmU-0001xT@mrelay.perfora.net> X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net login:abf7a4bb310ea4dfc9b6841113e2970f X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Without PTC the picture is incomplete. Are we looking at a specific subset (not full) of interoperability? Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM > To: Alper Yegin; nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan > > Based on feedback from the BoF, the initial proposed scope has been > reduced to focus on PA, PB, and PTT interfaces, the reasoning being that > this is a minimal set to demonstrate interoperability between client and > server. Requirements for other interfaces will be revisited when > progress has been made on these. > > The proposed charter will be revised to reflect this. > > Thanks > Susan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:45 PM > To: Susan Thomson (sethomso); nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan > > > Hi Susan, > > What's the plan for the PTC? The charter states "Requirements need to be > defined for an EAP over L3 transport for L3 access scenarios.". > > Regards, > > Alper > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:24 PM > > To: nea@ietf.org > > Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan > > > > This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for which > > > there seems to be rough consensus. > > > > > > Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: > > > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > > > The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D. > > > > Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action > > plan with timelines to kick-off this process. > > > > Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined > > as > > necessary): > > > > Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster, > > Amerdeep Sibia Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview: > > Mauricio Sanchez, Joseph Tardo PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita PTT > > Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou Security > > Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal > > > > Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let Hormuzd, > > Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this I-D > > specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. > > > > > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing > > list. > > > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope > > > > Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and > > Mauricio Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid duplication > > > of effort and ensure consistency with requirements I-D. > > > > Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG > > is formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a > > starting point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in > reqts I-D. > > > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > > > Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall requirements > > > I-D in A) above. > > > > Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: > > June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group > > and BOF meetings June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial > > document (-00) submission > > > > With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a week > > or two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at least B) > > and > > C) around May 20. > > > > > > Thanks > > Susan & Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sat Apr 22 00:34:46 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX9pW-00007M-Lo; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:34:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX9pU-00007C-T0 for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:34:44 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21] helo=azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FX9pU-0006HT-Hy for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:34:44 -0400 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101-1.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2006 21:34:41 -0700 Received: from orsmsx332.jf.intel.com (HELO orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com) ([192.168.65.60]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2006 21:34:41 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,146,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="26373219:sNHT21433594" Received: from orsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.226.47]) by orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:34:41 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:34:05 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Action plan for NEA Requirements Thread-Index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZAACuL9Q From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" To: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2006 04:34:41.0248 (UTC) FILETIME=[125A5E00:01C665C6] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Cc: Subject: [Nea] Action plan for NEA Requirements 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Susan. Hi Folks, I want to outline the basic plan for moving forward with the Requirements draft. Pls let me know if there are any comments.=20 As Susan mentioned, I will float out an outline of the Requirements draft to the team. We will have regular weekly conference calls to work on the draft, atleast once a week for the full team and may be more for subteams. I will be posting the summary of the team discussions/status on a regular basis to the mailing list. We will be shooting for May 31st to get an initial draft out since this will be needed by Steve, Susan for the WG/BoF by June 5th. Feedback from the list will be welcome throughout this process. I will be sending email to the requirements team members, that Susan has listed below to get feedback and move forward on this. regards Hormuzd -----Original Message----- From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:24 PM To: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for which there seems to be rough consensus. Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D.=20 Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action plan with timelines to kick-off this process. Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined as necessary): Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster, Amerdeep Sibia Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview: Mauricio Sanchez, Joseph Tardo=20 PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita=20 PTT Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou=20 Security Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let Hormuzd, Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this I-D specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing list. C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on transport-independent PA and PB and requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and Mauricio Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistency with requirements I-D.=20 Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG is formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a starting point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in reqts I-D. D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall requirements I-D in A) above. Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group and BOF meetings=20 June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission=20 With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a week or two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at least B) and C) around May 20.=20 Thanks Susan & Steve=20 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sat Apr 22 11:52:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKPj-0003KI-3p; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:51 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKPh-0003KA-0P for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:49 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXKPe-0007lv-LG for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:48 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2006 11:52:46 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,146,1144036800"; d="scan'208"; a="87005965:sNHT44243676" 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 k3MFqiTL001762; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:46 -0400 (EDT) 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); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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] Next Steps on NEA action plan Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan thread-index: AcZlgYhYPEMdbeQETaunQnjM27UcZAAAtzKwAACAoxAAB08MUAAgMXXA From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" To: "Alper Yegin" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2006 15:52:43.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB18BE10:01C66624] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172 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: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org There are existing standards for PTC for specific deployment scenarios, like 802.1x.=20 Susan -----Original Message----- From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org]=20 Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:29 PM To: Susan Thomson (sethomso); nea@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan Without PTC the picture is incomplete. Are we looking at a specific subset (not full) of interoperability? Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:12 AM > To: Alper Yegin; nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan >=20 > Based on feedback from the BoF, the initial proposed scope has been=20 > reduced to focus on PA, PB, and PTT interfaces, the reasoning being=20 > that this is a minimal set to demonstrate interoperability between=20 > client and server. Requirements for other interfaces will be revisited > when progress has been made on these. >=20 > The proposed charter will be revised to reflect this. >=20 > Thanks > Susan >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:45 PM > To: Susan Thomson (sethomso); nea@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan >=20 >=20 > Hi Susan, >=20 > What's the plan for the PTC? The charter states "Requirements need to=20 > be defined for an EAP over L3 transport for L3 access scenarios.". >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Alper >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:24 PM > > To: nea@ietf.org > > Subject: [Nea] Next Steps on NEA action plan > > > > This is a follow-up to the last call on the NEA action plan, for=20 > > which >=20 > > there seems to be rough consensus. > > > > > > Below are proposed next steps for each of the actions: > > > > A) Draft requirements for PA, PB, and PTT > > > > The proposal is to start out with a single requirements I-D. > > > > Hormuzd Khosravi will float a requirements I-D outline and an action > > plan with timelines to kick-off this process. > > > > Volunteers so far to contribute to reqts I-D include (to be refined > > as > > necessary): > > > > Overall Requirements I-D editor: Hormuzd Khosravi, Paul Sangster,=20 > > Amerdeep Sibia Terminology, Problem Statement, System Overview: > > Mauricio Sanchez, Joseph Tardo PA, PB Requirements: Ravi Sahita PTT > > Requirements: Kevin Amorin, John Vollbrecht, Hao Zhou Security > > Considerations: Jeff Six, Uri Blumenthal > > > > Any others who have volunteered "generic" cycles, please let=20 > > Hormuzd, Steve and me know if you would like to contribute to this=20 > > I-D specifically. Otherwise, we assume you will review. > > > > > > B) Revise proposed NEA charter to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT > > > > Steve and Susan to update with review and contributions from mailing > > list. > > > > C) Revise NEA problem statement to focus on > > transport-independent PA and PB and > > requirements for PTT and reflect reduced scope > > > > Susan will update the problem statement I-D with Joe Tardo and=20 > > Mauricio Sanchez (along with existing co-editors) to avoid=20 > > duplication >=20 > > of effort and ensure consistency with requirements I-D. > > > > Note: The intent is to let the problem statement I-D lapse once a WG > > is formed. As appropriate, sections from this document will form a=20 > > starting point for the terminology, system overview, etc sections in > reqts I-D. > > > > D) Draft security analysis of entire NEA system > > > > Addressed in "security considerations" section in overall=20 > > requirements >=20 > > I-D in A) above. > > > > Note: Important meeting dates to keep in mind for next IETF include: > > June 5, Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group=20 > > and BOF meetings June 19, Monday - Internet Draft Cut-off for=20 > > initial document (-00) submission > > > > With area-specific deadlines for WG/BoF requests likely to be a=20 > > week or two before June 5, we need to aim to have consensus on at=20 > > least B) and > > C) around May 20. > > > > > > Thanks > > Susan & Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 26 10:37:52 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYl9M-0004bD-J2; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:37:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYl9L-0004b8-55 for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:37:51 -0400 Received: from handynerds.com ([207.234.208.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYl9J-0008G7-Ug for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:37:51 -0400 Received: from apache by HandyNerds.com with local (Exim 4.41) id 1FYkFG-0008M4-Gv for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:39:54 -0400 Received: from host9.blackbirdtech.com ([65.220.19.9]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user bthorson); by www.handynerds.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51366.65.220.19.9.1146058794.squirrel@65.220.19.9> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:39:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brett Thorson" To: nea@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-0.f1.1.5.legacy X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-0.f1.1.5.legacy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [Nea] Suggested Name Changes X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@handynerds.com List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org Hello, I was wondering if I might suggest name changes to two of the pieces in our infrastructure. Network Enforcer to Network Enforcement Point. The first one sounds like a wrestler, whereas the second one sounds more like a piece of hardware that can be referenced. Server Broker to Posture Broker. I think the piece that is labeled Server Broker, is actually brokering postures to the server. A stock broker moves stocks, so would a posture broker be a better definition for this piece moving postures to servers to be validated. Just suggestions, I'm eager to hear thoughts either way. Cheers! --Brett P.S. If anyone is at Interop 06 Las Vegas next week, we are going to have TCG, NAC, and NAP running in the iLabs. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea