From sethomso@cisco.com Fri May 8 13:54:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B943A6AE9 for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 13:54:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTSl30LwxwDi for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 13:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2523A6B36 for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 13:54:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,319,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="183037677" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2009 20:56:13 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n48KuD5S022389 for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 13:56:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n48KuD71029186 for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 20:56:13 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 May 2009 16:56:13 -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, 8 May 2009 16:56:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Submitting PA-TNC and PB-TNC I-Ds to IESG Thread-Index: AcnQH2tmQcqHVX0dRO69667Jz2TK8g== From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2009 20:56:13.0189 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C096B50:01C9D01F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=14294; t=1241816173; x=1242680173; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; 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:=20Submitting=20PA-TNC=20and=20PB-TNC=20I-Ds=20to= 20IESG |Sender:=20; bh=L1ufJa9lJy2XStsJrrZFw11f8J+9buYFlPE5Z6uy8aA=; b=qzvl76y4QDf+rQ3o2aAJrlFIX/rOv/5ZnUTNXIC7hevOGLUthnwB4AuC3a QNlVUEgRPwR3Ontv735s5VAnDfBlq8ATnnAQhholc05Z3TdpPg1tiSTDP1aQ AW+wHQQgRtjOKqoTS9kNJ+9badIoZsY/GSWbQ4p4t93Xn1ef3xU9U=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=sethomso@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Nea] Submitting PA-TNC and PB-TNC I-Ds to IESG X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 20:54:46 -0000 Now that we have completed WG Last Call and have consensus on the documents: draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04.txt draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-04.txt,=20 the next step is to submit the documents to the IESG.=20 Per RFC 4858, I am the document shepherd for both drafts. The next step is AD evaluation and IETF Last Call. I will be working with our AD, Tim Polk, to facilitate this process. Attached are the document write-ups required by this process. I will keep the WG apprised of progress. The document status can also be seen in https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ Thanks Susan ----------------- Doc shepherd write-up for: draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-04.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the=20 Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=20 document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=20 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=20 Susan Thomson (sethomso@cisco.com) is document shepherd. I have reviewed this document and believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=20 and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=20 any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=20 have been performed?=20 The document has had adequate review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=20 needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=20 e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=20 AAA, internationalization or XML?=20 No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=20 issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director=20 and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=20 or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or=20 has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=20 event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=20 that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=20 concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=20 been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=20 disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=20 this issue.=20 No concerns or IPR disclosures related to this document. Please see WG Summary below for additional information. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=20 others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=20 agree with it?=20 WG consensus is solid for this document. Please see WG Summary below=20 for additional information. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme=20 discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in=20 separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=20 should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=20 entered into the ID Tracker.)=20 No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=20 document satisfies all ID nits? (See=20 http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and=20 http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are=20 not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=20 met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=20 Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes.=20 (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=20 informative? Are there normative references to documents that=20 are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=20 state? If such normative references exist, what is the=20 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=20 that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=20 so, list these downward references to support the Area=20 Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=20 The document has split its references into normative and=20 informative. There are no downward references or references to=20 documents that are in an unclear state. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA=20 consideration section exists and is consistent with the body=20 of the document? If the document specifies protocol=20 extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=20 registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=20 the document creates a new registry, does it define the=20 proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=20 procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=20 reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the=20 document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd=20 conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG=20 can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?=20 Yes. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=20 document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=20 code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=20 an automated checker?=20 No formal language is used. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=20 announcement contains the following sections:=20 Technical Summary=20 This document defines the PB-TNC protocol. PB-TNC is a Posture=20 Broker protocol that aggregates posture attributes between one or=20 more Posture Collectors on a NEA client and one or more Posture=20 Validators on a NEA server. PB-TNC is equivalent to the=20 Trusted Computing Group's IF-TNCCS 2.0 protocol. It addresses the PB=20 protocol requirements defined in the NEA requirements specification. Working Group Summary=20 The WG solicited proposals for the PB protocol based on the=20 NEA reference model and requirements specified in RFC 5209. The TCG=20 submitted a specification to the NEA WG in response to the call for=20 proposals. There was broad support in the WG to adopt the submission as=20 a WG document. Subsequent WG updates to the document have not been=20 contentious. The protocol document specifies a base protocol and is extensible.=20 The WG has discussed the potential for certain optimizations and=20 extensions to the above specifications (e.g. assertion attributes). The=20 proposed extensions did not share the same level of consensus as the=20 base document and also represented significant additional work. The WG=20 decided to defer potential extensions to supplemental documents in the=20 interests of making progress on the base documents. Document Quality =20 Several vendors have indicated their intention in public or private to=20 implement the specification. Personnel Susan Thomson is the document shepherd. Tim Polk is the responsible=20 Area Director. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document=20 . ------------------ Doc shepherd write-up for: draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the=20 Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=20 document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=20 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=20 Susan Thomson (sethomso@cisco.com) is document shepherd. I have reviewed this document and believe this version is ready for=20 forwarding to the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=20 and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=20 any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=20 have been performed?=20 The document has had adequate review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=20 needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=20 e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=20 AAA, internationalization or XML?=20 No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=20 issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director=20 and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=20 or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or=20 has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=20 event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=20 that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=20 concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=20 been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=20 disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=20 this issue.=20 No concerns or IPR disclosures related to this document. Please see WG=20 Summary below for additional information. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=20 others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=20 agree with it?=20 WG consensus is solid for this document. Please see WG Summary below=20 for additional information. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme=20 discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in=20 separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=20 should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=20 entered into the ID Tracker.)=20 No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=20 document satisfies all ID nits? (See=20 http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and=20 http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are=20 not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=20 met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=20 Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes.=20 (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=20 informative? Are there normative references to documents that=20 are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=20 state? If such normative references exist, what is the=20 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=20 that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=20 so, list these downward references to support the Area=20 Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=20 The document has split its references into normative and=20 informative. There are no downward references or references to=20 documents that are in an unclear state. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA=20 consideration section exists and is consistent with the body=20 of the document? If the document specifies protocol=20 extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=20 registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=20 the document creates a new registry, does it define the=20 proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=20 procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=20 reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the=20 document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd=20 conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG=20 can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?=20 Yes. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=20 document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=20 code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=20 an automated checker?=20 No formal language is used. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=20 announcement contains the following sections:=20 Technical Summary=20 This document defines the PA-TNC protocol. PA-TNC is a Posture=20 Attribute protocol that carries posture attributes between a=20 Posture Collector on a NEA client and a Posture Validator on a NEA=20 server. The PA-TNC protocol is designed to run over the PB-TNC=20 protocol. PA-TNC is equivalent to the Trusted Computing=20 Group's IF-M 1.0 protocol. It addresses the PA protocol requirements=20 defined in the NEA requirements specification. Working Group Summary=20 The WG solicited proposals for the PA protocol based on the=20 NEA reference model and requirements specified in RFC 5209. The TCG=20 submitted a specification to the NEA WG in response to the call for=20 proposals. There was broad support in the WG to adopt the submission as=20 a WG document. Subsequent WG updates to the document have not been=20 contentious. The protocol document specifies a base protocol and is extensible.=20 The WG has discussed the potential for certain optimizations and=20 extensions to the above specifications (e.g. additional standard=20 posture attributes). The proposed extensions did not share the same=20 level of consensus as the base document and represented significant=20 additional work. The WG decided to defer potential extensions to=20 supplemental documents in the interests of making progress on the base=20 documents. Document Quality =20 Several vendors have indicated their intention in public or private to=20 implement the specification. Personnel Susan Thomson is the document shepherd. Tim Polk is the responsible=20 Area Director. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document=20 .