From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 03 15:24:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzHqN-0001b5-T7; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:24:43 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzHqM-0001ak-Ui for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:24:42 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzHqM-0001Zf-8X for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:24:42 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzHot-0006mv-DF for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:23:11 -0500 Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.157]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzHos-00037B-Pr for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:23:11 -0500 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:22:09 PST Received: from antimuon.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.32]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:22:05 -0800 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:18:21 -0800 Message-ID: <1039CD74656F7B42816FE6532F32C1940435D627@antimuon.jnpr.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Feedback on NEA requirements Thread-Index: Acg16ZiTwjGuEPaKT5Ow7HynOZzPhA== From: "Lisa Lorenzin" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 20:22:05.0177 (UTC) FILETIME=[2BB21690:01C835EA] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 X-TMDA-Confirmed: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:24:42 -0500 Subject: [Nea] Feedback on 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 Greetings! I'm new to this list and working group, so have been reading=20 archives and the requirements draft to familiarize myself with=20 the discussions so far. I'm still working my way through the archives, but have a couple of very minor questions / comments=20 about the requirements document: Section 4 "NEA technology can be used to provide posture assessment=20 for a range of ways of connecting to the network including=20 (but not limited to) wired and wireless LAN access such as=20 using 802.1X[801.1X], remote access via IPsec[IPSEC] or=20 SSL[TLS] VPN, or gateway access." =20 What does "gateway access" mean in this context? Section 6.1.1.2 ". The Posture Broker Server on the NEA Server is instructed=20 to assess the endpoint joining the wired network." If I understand the intent here, this might be more clear if=20 "instructed to" is changed to "configured to" - as written, it=20 sounds like it receives an instruction, rather than is in a state=20 of instructedness. Other than that, the requirements document seems very thorough and straightforward.=20 Regards, Lisa -- Lisa Lorenzin / 919-384-7275 / llorenzin@juniper.net=20 Principal Solutions Architect - Security Solutions Juniper Networks http://www.juniper.net _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 16:07:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izeze-0004M2-RO; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:07:50 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izezd-0004LB-RG for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:07:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izezd-0004Ku-Ft for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:07:49 -0500 Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izezb-0002tN-V9 for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:07:49 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=fAz53adKeMOQscn2HodvNlPsMbJ8REh5EjiaMq2bET7RwKLhp0gcsIXiSUbKOJPu; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.125.79.23] (helo=gw) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Izezb-0002ho-HJ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:07:47 -0500 Message-ID: <004701c836b9$bf26cd60$174f7d40@home.glassey.com> From: "todd glassey" To: "Lisa Lorenzin" , References: <1039CD74656F7B42816FE6532F32C1940435D627@antimuon.jnpr.net> Subject: Re: [Nea] Feedback on NEA requirements Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:07:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79c09daf2bd674c9cd6b3902c045c2e95a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.125.79.23 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 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 Lisa - it has to do with both defining the locations of the GW's and the policy context necessary to allow that access. Its also key to notice that many of the controls that NEA is supposed to setup will need time data as well to properly setup a secured channel, or at least one would think. Todd Glassey CISM CIFI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa Lorenzin" To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:18 PM Subject: [Nea] Feedback on NEA requirements Greetings! I'm new to this list and working group, so have been reading archives and the requirements draft to familiarize myself with the discussions so far. I'm still working my way through the archives, but have a couple of very minor questions / comments about the requirements document: Section 4 "NEA technology can be used to provide posture assessment for a range of ways of connecting to the network including (but not limited to) wired and wireless LAN access such as using 802.1X[801.1X], remote access via IPsec[IPSEC] or SSL[TLS] VPN, or gateway access." What does "gateway access" mean in this context? Section 6.1.1.2 ". The Posture Broker Server on the NEA Server is instructed to assess the endpoint joining the wired network." If I understand the intent here, this might be more clear if "instructed to" is changed to "configured to" - as written, it sounds like it receives an instruction, rather than is in a state of instructedness. Other than that, the requirements document seems very thorough and straightforward. Regards, Lisa -- Lisa Lorenzin / 919-384-7275 / llorenzin@juniper.net Principal Solutions Architect - Security Solutions Juniper Networks http://www.juniper.net _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 05 10:21:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izw3a-0000z5-18; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:21:02 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izw3Y-0000y4-JY for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:21:00 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izw3Y-0000xi-9S for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:21:00 -0500 Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.157]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izw3V-0002bp-Uc for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:21:00 -0500 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:20:47 PST Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:20:33 -0800 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:18:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NEA agenda and slides posted Thread-Index: Acg3UiWwBRCn9jdOTq2LtJf7xuci2A== From: "Stephen Hanna" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 15:20:33.0539 (UTC) FILETIME=[6110B530:01C83752] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Subject: [Nea] NEA agenda and slides posted 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 Susan and I have updated the agenda for today's NEA WG meeting and posted the slides on the IETF 70 web site at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/70/materials.html Remote participants, please download the slides in advance. I have included a copy of the revised agenda below. The main change was to expand the discussion of next steps and move it earlier in the agenda. We did this at the suggestion of Tim Polk, our AD. Tim suggested that we spend some time working on a new set of milestones, since we'll soon (I hope!) need to start work on PA and PB. See the Overview slides for those draft milestones. Thanks, Steve Agenda for IETF 70 NEA WG meeting =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 Time: 1300-1500 WG Charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nea-charter.html WG Tools: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea WG email: nea@ietf.org 1300 Administrivia Blue Sheets Jabber & Minute scribes Agenda bashing 1305 WG Status 1310 Discuss NEA Requirements draft =20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt=20 1410 Discuss Next Steps 1440 Discuss Mutual Network Endpoint Assessment requirements draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wei-nea-mnea-00.txt 1500 Adjourn _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 05 20:01:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J057N-0003Mo-Cd; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:01:33 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J057N-0003Mi-3z for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:01:33 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J057M-0003MZ-Ol for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:01:32 -0500 Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.163]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J057M-0005rX-7C for nea@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:01:32 -0500 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:01:31 PST Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:01:30 -0800 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:59:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NEA WG Report Thread-Index: Acg3otMNIxzLR+qwTV2w3gVWFBL5tQAAAPHQ From: "Stephen Hanna" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 01:01:30.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[896D2E90:01C837A3] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Subject: [Nea] FW: NEA WG Report 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 For those who are eager to hear what happened at today's NEA WG meeting, here's the report that I just sent to the SAAG (Security Area Advisory Group) list. Draft minutes from today's NEA WG meeting should be coming out in the next week or two. Thanks to everyone who made today's NEA meeting a success! I look forward to working with you in the next phase of our work (getting the requirements approved and working on protocol specs). What a good group! Take care, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Hanna=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:56 PM To: saag@mit.edu Subject: NEA WG Report The Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) WG met Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 1 PM PST. Just completed WGLC on draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt. One comment was received and it was positive. We reviewed the document, including a review of recent changes and all of the requirements. Questions were asked and answered about the internationalization requirements (C-9 and C-10) and a few other points. At the end of the discussion, there was a hum on whether the document is ready for submission to IESG, IETF Last Call, and eventual publication as an Informational RFC. The hum was 100% in favor. Based on this hum and on previous discussion on the mailing list, the chairs declared that there is WG consensus for submitting the document. Draft milestones for the next year were discussed. As required by our charter, the focus will be on soliciting proposals for the PA and PB protocols, selecting PA and PB protocol specs, refining the specs, and getting WG and IETF consensus on them. We hope to have the specs ready for IESG consideration about January 2009. The draft milestones will be discussed further on the email list and sent to our AD for approval when they're ready. Finally, we discussed the MNEA requirements document (draft-wei-nea-mnea-00.txt). Everyone agreed that this is cool stuff but should not be a NEA WG item because it's still research and out of scope for us. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 06 00:30:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09Jg-00010H-Vw; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:30:32 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J09Jf-000105-S8 for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:30:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09Jf-0000zv-IH for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:30:31 -0500 Received: from extu-mxob-2.symantec.com ([216.10.194.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09Je-0001z0-T3 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:30:31 -0500 Received: from tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com (tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com [192.168.214.44]) by extu-mxob-2.symantec.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lB65UU9n025535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:30:30 -0800 Received: from reserved-155-64-230-20.ges.symantec.com ([155.64.230.20] helo=TUS1XCHECNPIN03.enterprise.veritas.com) by tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1J09Je-0002KW-7f; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:30:30 -0800 Received: from TUS1XCHEVSPIN05.enterprise.veritas.com ([155.64.231.27]) by TUS1XCHECNPIN03.enterprise.veritas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:30:30 -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] Feedback on NEA requirements Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1039CD74656F7B42816FE6532F32C1940435D627@antimuon.jnpr.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Feedback on NEA requirements Thread-Index: Acg16ZiTwjGuEPaKT5Ow7HynOZzPhAB3UTqg References: <1039CD74656F7B42816FE6532F32C1940435D627@antimuon.jnpr.net> From: "Paul Sangster" To: "Lisa Lorenzin" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 05:30:30.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D6D5DC0:01C837C9] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 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 Lisa, Thanks for the review and comments. Some thoughts are in-lined...=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Lorenzin [mailto:llorenzin@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:18 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] Feedback on NEA requirements >=20 > Greetings! >=20 > I'm new to this list and working group, so have been reading=20 > archives and the requirements draft to familiarize myself=20 > with the discussions so far. I'm still working my way=20 > through the archives, but have a couple of very minor=20 > questions / comments about the requirements document: >=20 > Section 4 > "NEA technology can be used to provide posture assessment=20 > for a range of ways of connecting to the network including=20 > (but not limited to) wired and wireless LAN access such as=20 > using 802.1X[801.1X], remote access via IPsec[IPSEC] or=20 > SSL[TLS] VPN, or gateway access." =20 >=20 > What does "gateway access" mean in this context? This was added included to refer to other types of network access besides SSL/TLS or IPsec VPN oriented remote access. An example might be a portal server. >=20 > Section 6.1.1.2 >=20 > ". The Posture Broker Server on the NEA Server is instructed=20 > to assess the endpoint joining the wired network." >=20 > If I understand the intent here, this might be more clear if=20 > "instructed to" is changed to "configured to" - as written,=20 > it sounds like it receives an instruction, rather than is in=20 > a state of instructedness. We wanted a word that was more generic then just configured. There are multiple ways in which the PBS might decide whether an assessment is needed. One is that it might consult its configuration, so we wanted a word more generic. >=20 > Other than that, the requirements document seems very=20 > thorough and straightforward.=20 Thanks and we appreciate your comments. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Lisa >=20 > -- > Lisa Lorenzin / 919-384-7275 / llorenzin@juniper.net=20 > Principal Solutions Architect - Security Solutions > Juniper Networks http://www.juniper.net >=20 >=20 >=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 Thu Dec 06 13:55:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Lt6-0003Yb-Ml; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:55:56 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Lt5-0003R1-2Y for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:55:55 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Lt4-0003PK-Nq for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:55:54 -0500 Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.157]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Lt4-0006B4-7V for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:55:54 -0500 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:55:37 PST Received: from antimuon.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.32]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:55:50 -0800 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] Feedback on NEA requirements Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:55:49 -0800 Message-ID: <1039CD74656F7B42816FE6532F32C1940435D652@antimuon.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Feedback on NEA requirements Thread-Index: Acg16ZiTwjGuEPaKT5Ow7HynOZzPhAB3UTqgABu6yqA= From: "Lisa Lorenzin" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 18:55:50.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E52D8A0:01C83839] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 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 Paul, > > What does "gateway access" mean in this context? >=20 > This was added included to refer to other types of network=20 > access besides SSL/TLS or IPsec VPN oriented remote access. =20 > An example might be a portal server. Okay, I get that. > > If I understand the intent here, this might be more clear if=20 > > "instructed to" is changed to "configured to" - as written,=20 > > it sounds like it receives an instruction, rather than is in=20 > > a state of instructedness. >=20 > We wanted a word that was more generic then just configured. =20 > There are multiple ways in which the PBS might decide whether=20 > an assessment is needed. One is that it might consult its=20 > configuration, so we wanted a word more generic. I see - it's a more broad usage than I was applying. That also makes sense; I withdraw my suggestion to change it. Thanks for clarifying these! =20 Regards, Lisa -- Lisa Lorenzin / 919-384-7275 / llorenzin@juniper.net=20 Principal Solutions Architect - Security Solutions Juniper Networks http://www.juniper.net _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 06 23:02:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0UPc-0005Ql-C7; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:02:04 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0UPa-0005Qb-BJ for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:02:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0UPa-0005QT-19 for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:02:02 -0500 Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.157]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0UPZ-0005JH-3B for nea@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:02:02 -0500 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:02:00 PST Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:01:59 -0800 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: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:57:50 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Submitted draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt for publication Thread-Index: Acg4hVW6QVexBdCLSQyW2BRzu5bhqg== From: "Stephen Hanna" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2007 04:01:59.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA620F80:01C83885] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 3d7f2f6612d734db849efa86ea692407 Subject: [Nea] Submitted draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt for publication 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 Since the NEA WG has reached consensus to request publication of draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt as an Informational RFC, I have sent it off to our Area Director, Tim Polk. I expect that he will soon start an IETF Last Call on the document. Consistent with the Document Shepherding process described in RFC 4858, I will be the Document Shepherd for this document. That means that I'm responsible for writing a Document Shepherd Write-Up (copied below) and for facilitating the document's progress throughout the review process. I'll keep you posted on this progress or you can observe it yourself using the ID Tracker . Thanks, Steve ---------- (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Steve Hanna is the Document Shepherd. Yes, I have personally reviewed the document and believe that it is ready for the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes, the document has had thorough review by a good number of WG members and several non-WG members. I do not have any concerns about the breadth of reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No specific concerns or IPR disclosures. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG consensus is strong for this document. At least ten WG members have reviewed this requirements document and indicated that they support advancing this version. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are properly split and don't include any problematic normative references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? As explained in the document's IANA Considerations section, there are no IANA actions needed for this specification. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No part of the document is written in a formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines the problem statement, scope and protocol requirements between the components of the NEA (Network Endpoint Assessment) reference model. NEA provides owners of networks (e.g. an enterprise offering remote access) a mechanism to evaluate the posture of a system. This may take place during the request for network access and/or subsequently at any time while connected to the network. The learned posture information can then be applied to a variety of compliance oriented decisions. The posture information is frequently useful for detecting systems that are lacking or have out of date security protective =20 mechanisms such as: anti-virus and host-based firewall software. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Document Quality At least one group of authors is putting together a set of protocols aimed to meet the requirements in this document. Personnel Steve Hanna shepherded this document. Tim Polk was the Responsible Area Director. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 10 10:47:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1krN-0003CJ-FW; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:57 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J1krL-0003C5-LB for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:55 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1krL-0003Bw-BX; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:55 -0500 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1krL-0003v1-1m; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:55 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E93328DA; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:47:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J1krK-0008RK-Tu; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:54 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:54 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] Last Call: draft-ietf-nea-requirements (Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nea-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Network Endpoint Assessment WG (nea) to consider the following document: - 'Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15588&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 15 01:14:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3QHv-0007Hn-Bd; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:15 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J3QHs-0007He-M8 for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3QHr-0007HV-Tx for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:11 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3QHp-00058x-UI for nea@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:11 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2007 01:14:06 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBF6E5J5028788; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:05 -0500 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 lBF6E3a8019291; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:14:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:03 -0500 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: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DRAFT minutes of NEA WG meeting at IETF 70 Thread-Index: Acg+4a/v/JKDiu45TXGIGBKVC2XWUw== From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2007 06:14:03.0305 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0B19190:01C83EE1] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7321; t=1197699245; x=1198563245; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sethomso@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Susan=20Thomson=20(sethomso)=22=20 |Subject:=20DRAFT=20=20minutes=20of=20NEA=20WG=20meeting=20 at=20IETF=2070 |Sender:=20 |To:=20; bh=fBLiQx+NvFn52wW3EN/PaO2oWA4ofWRE35VTIlS/hRI=; b=D1myI5EerBPN/Ap93dXkFYL4i6r8VY/H4YJTJ5vnzZ6Y9bEngrPvdsEeCW t5Tj7Mjye83tZQacb41oUBfu/vLU8OAOr1pjP4ovm/a0PXEkXDtyFrEscP6S D2+Oaa0S5L; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=sethomso@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9af087f15dbdd4c64ae6bbcdbc5b1d44 Cc: Subject: [Nea] DRAFT minutes of NEA WG meeting at IETF 70 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 Below are the draft minutes of the NEA WG meeting at IETF 70. Any updates, please let me know. Thanks Susan ------------------------------------------- These notes do not attempt to duplicate the content of the slides. Instead, they summarize the material presented, and focus on comments and discussion. Agenda: Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 Time: 1300-1500 WG Charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nea-charter.html WG Tools: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea WG email: nea@ietf.org 1300 Administrivia Blue Sheets Jabber & Minute scribes Agenda bashing 1305 WG Status 1310 Discuss WGLC comments on NEA requirements draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-05.txt=20 1410 Next Steps 1440 Discuss requirement for mutual network endpoint assessment http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wei-nea-mnea-00.txt=20 1500 Adjourn WG Status: Steve reviewed WG status since the last IETF.=20 The milestones since the last IETF (IETF69) are as follows: --- First WGLC 7/13/2007 - 8/10/2007 --- draft-nea-requirements-04.txt published in August 2007 --- draft-nea-requirements-05.txt published in November 2007 --- Second WGLC 11/5/2007 - 12/3/2007 One comment (generally positive) was received during the second WGLC. If no substantive issues are raised during this meeting, the next step is to take the draft to the IETF Last Call. NEA requirements draft: Prior to review of -05 version of draft, Steve asked for a show of hands who had read any version of the requirements draft. Approximately 10-12 people raised their hand. When asked who had read the -05 version of the document 5-6 people raised their hand. Mahalingam Mani reviewed the changes to the requirements draft since the last IETF when the -03 version of the draft had been discussed. He summarized the changes to the common requirements, the PA requirements, the PB requirements and the PT requirements. Mani then reviewed all the requirements as specified in Section 7 of the document. Questions and comments were as follows. Common Requirements: Hao Zhou had a question on C-7 regarding what a large number of attributes actually means. Mani stated there is no specific number in mind. Steve suggested that we not stall moving the draft through the IETF process, but in parallel discuss what metrics we desire to hit. Tim Polk said that we shouldn't be too specific on what metrics to hit at this point, since it may box us in unnecessarly. The intent of the requirement is to guide protocol design choices. Gary Tomlinson said the numbers could be larger than one expects. Based on implementation experience, they had guessed wrong on how much traffic would get exchanged. Tim stated that requirements are a statement of intention not hard metrics. During protocol discussions, the WG must make sure these requirements are not overlooked during the design stage. Yaron Sheffer said that C-9 covers C-10. Doesn't feel we should specify encoding type. Tim Polk disagreed. He sees value in C-10. Paul Hoffman pointed out that language and encoding are two different concepts, therefore C-9 and C-10 are distinct requirements. The requirement for UTF-8 encoding (C-10) is needed for interoperability, since in some countries there may be a preference for a national encoding. The requirements draft needs to say that an implementation must support UTF-8. PA Requirements: There were no comments on PA requirements. PB Requirements: Susan commented that PB-1 reads as being uni-directional, whereas the intent is that it is bi-directional. This can be easily fixed by saying that communication is between PBC and PBS, rather than saying communication is from PBS to PBC. Mani said that bi-directional assessment is actually covered by requirement C-1. PT Requirements: There were no comments on PT requirements. Next Steps: Steve asked for a hum in the room regarding whether the -05 draft was ready to be sent to the IESG for IETF Last Call and then for consideration for approval as Informational. The hum was unanimous in favor of moving the document forward. Steve declared, based on this hum and on previous discussion on the WG email list, that there is WG consensus in favor of moving the draft forward. Tim stated that having just one comment in four weeks is indicative that the document is done, and that he approves of sending the document to Last Call. Steve to send document this afternoon to AD. Steve presented proposed milestones for the upcoming protocol work including submission of candidate proposals for PA and PB in February prior to the next IETF in March. These proposed milestones assume that the IETF Last Call goes smoothly and no substantive updates are required to the requirements draft. Tim Polk suggested some rewording of milestones as presented in the slides relative to IESG timelines. Tim also stated that we can start work on protocols one the IESG receives the requirements document (after IETF LC comments have been resolved). Gary asked a question about where Internet Drafts for PA and PB may come from. Tim Polk said these are from individuals. They may come from other SDOs, assuming the Drafts meet IETF requirements. Copyright issues are sometimes a sticking point. Stefan Santesson suggested reordering the last couple of milestones to show that the protocol submissions are submitted to IESG prior to IETF Last Call. Mutual network endpoint assessment: Ke Jia (Jack Chia) presented an individual submission on mutual network endpoint assessment (draft-wei-nea-mnea-00.txt). This work currently lies outside the scope of the charter. The intent of the presentation was not to request a change in the charter, but to gather feedback on the use case. Mauricio Sanchez asked the question how this would this apply in a hot-spot ISP use case. Specifically, what which attributes would the endpoint request from the AP? Hao Zhou responded that he thought the intended use case is for peer-to-peer applications such as file sharing. Paul Hoffman added that mutual posture validation might be useful for protection in this use case, e.g. where sharing executables. Paul mentioned that peer-to-peer communications may be directed via a server, and asked whether a peer-to-server communication would cover this use case. He also asked whether there is IPR associated with the submission. Ke Jia said no. Gary said the idea was interesting, but that the challenge would be operational in nature, e.g. managing trust relationships and policies. Nancy Cam-Winget on behalf of Kaushik Narayan asked what the trust model is? Jack said this had not been considered yet. Tim said this is interesting work and a potentially useful idea, and worthwhile to get input from the WG and investigate further. However, he would not support the addition of this use case into the requirements document at this point in the process, as it is research and will negatively impact the milestones. There is nothing preventing a protocol design from supporting this use case. Jack agreed and is just looking for feedback at this point. Meeting adjourned. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 16 09:15:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3uGu-0000nH-QT; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:15:12 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J3uGt-0000nB-7T for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:15:11 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3uGs-0000n3-TC for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:15:10 -0500 Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3uGs-0001qk-LS for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:15:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=okA32QcA0/NOT0pq0wK/Y/7hd28ZZtMFPkDgHMus8KZbm5Ovx51oNa6hxjT2hazA; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [24.23.176.93] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1J3uGr-0004vz-T3 for nea@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:15:10 -0500 Message-ID: <004301c83fee$10fc36b0$6401a8c0@tsg1> From: "TS Glassey" To: Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:15:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec794ebc28ff4a618bbcdd63544251837077350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 24.23.176.93 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [Nea] There is a set of convo's going on in DHCP's WG which are important here. 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 One of the key things that is coming to light is that we need a formal process for deploying the time server addresses for those clients to use. The DHCP crowd wants to place this inside the DHCP handshaking process, and we need to take that into account too I think. The source of the time being properly defined is a key 'configuration control' aspect of any operating environment and as such would also fall under this umbrella too I think. Todd _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 24 19:38:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xnz-0000p3-3t; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:37:59 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xny-0000oy-IW for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:37:58 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xnx-0000op-Uu for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:37:57 -0500 Received: from mail.sonicwall.com ([67.115.118.12] helo=es8000.sonicwall.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xnx-0006fd-Mc for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:37:57 -0500 Received: from es8000.sonicwall.com (127.0.0.1) by es8000.sonicwall.com (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id he186c0171s7 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:35:49 -0800 (envelope-from ) Received: from us0exf01.us.sonicwall.com ([10.50.128.221]) by es8000.sonicwall.com (SonicWALL 6.1.0.9471) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:35:49 -0800 Received: from us0exb10.us.sonicwall.com ([192.168.157.202]) by us0exf01.us.sonicwall.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:37:56 -0800 Received: from 192.168.161.157 ([192.168.161.157]) by us0exb10.us.sonicwall.com ([192.168.157.202]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:37:55 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:37:54 -0800 From: Gary Tomlinson To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Nea Digest, Vol 26, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Dec 2007 00:37:56.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[64A69C00:01C8468E] X-Mlf-Version: 6.1.0.9471 X-Mlf-UniqueId: o200712250035490098192 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Subject: [Nea] Re: Nea Digest, Vol 26, Issue 5 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 am on vacation from 12/19 - 12/25 and won't be able to reply until 12/26. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From nea-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 24 19:48:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xxq-0002Nf-Gs; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:48:10 -0500 Received: from nea by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xxo-0002NX-Gk for nea-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:48:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xxo-0002NN-6l for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:48:08 -0500 Received: from mail.sonicwall.com ([67.115.118.12] helo=es8000.sonicwall.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6xxn-0006Gj-Q5 for nea@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:48:08 -0500 Received: from es8000.sonicwall.com (127.0.0.1) by es8000.sonicwall.com (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id he19cg0171sg for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0800 (envelope-from ) Received: from us0exf01.us.sonicwall.com ([10.50.128.221]) by es8000.sonicwall.com (SonicWALL 6.1.0.9471) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0800 Received: from us0exb10.us.sonicwall.com ([192.168.157.202]) by us0exf01.us.sonicwall.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:48:06 -0800 Received: from 192.168.161.157 ([192.168.161.157]) by us0exb10.us.sonicwall.com ([192.168.157.202]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:48:06 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:47:30 -0800 From: Gary Tomlinson To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Nea Digest, Vol 26, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Dec 2007 00:48:06.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[D050E810:01C8468F] X-Mlf-Version: 6.1.0.9471 X-Mlf-UniqueId: o200712250046000098424 X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Subject: [Nea] Re: Nea Digest, Vol 26, Issue 5 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 am on vacation from 12/19 - 12/25 and won't be able to reply until 12/26. _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea