From sethomso@cisco.com Wed Oct 21 06:46:05 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 EEF423A6A35 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:46:05 -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=[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 k37Vu59gOg1u for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:46:05 -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 E53723A69E9 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:46:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sethomso@cisco.com; l=1671; q=dns/txt; s=sjiport01001; t=1256132774; x=1257342374; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20"Susan=20Thomson=20(sethomso)"=20|Subject:=20Call=20for=20submissions=20for=20=20Post ure=20Transport=20protocol=20proposals|Date:=20Wed,=2021 =20Oct=202009=2009:46:09=20-0400|Message-ID:=20|To:=20|Cc:=20"Stephen=20Hanna"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable; bh=ZcJ4eWEa2+kTpZhWr8DorllS7XIo8+gEq6Qo46Cwk8g=; b=AjSq4IdMwU9dM2JROtsjs2nICLtZHa2T8LId14ww10pN1gH864Wnr+qk ak/BurQtq20x/8EyQWZFttWSRqVAJ2EqZdXoaUEKzOrqlBaiAFp0kO+0A LmP/lXogVfOA+/1UJPgNSeU2jeZx180W1abR7rYC0eBQPi+KzkMiqDlEm Q=; Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAHat3kpAZnwM/2dsb2JhbADCbZhXhDEEgVw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,597,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="259218871" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2009 13:46:13 +0000 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9LDkCe9021178; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:46:13 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:46:12 -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: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:46:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Call for submissions for Posture Transport protocol proposals Thread-Index: AcpSVNhCXqxgGMeGSR6kMya2uK4hYg== From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2009 13:46:12.0720 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA54C700:01CA5254] Subject: [Nea] Call for submissions for Posture Transport protocol proposals 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: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:46:06 -0000 As announced on the mailing list recently, the charter for the NEA WG has been updated to allow work to proceed on Posture Transport (PT) protocol(s). The next step is to solicit proposals for PT from the WG.=20 If you have a proposal, please submit it to the IETF as an Internet-Draft (individual submission) by 5pm PT on Mon, Jan 4, 2010. Also, please notify the chairs by Mon Nov 2, if you plan to submit a proposal, and indicate whether you will be available to provide a conceptual overview of the proposal at the WG meeting at IETF76. This will help with setting the WG agenda. As you see, due to the delay in approval of the WG charter, we are setting the deadline for proposal submission to be after the upcoming IETF. This is later than originally planned, but we felt it was important to provide sufficient time for I-Ds to be written. To expedite progress, we do plan to allow time in the WG agenda at IETF76 for proponents to provide a conceptual overview of the planned submissions. This will allow early WG feedback, and provide the opportunity to combine proposals before submitting an I-D. No decisions will be made on selection of one proposal or another until the individual submissions have been received and reviewed by the WG. As discussed at the last IETF, we will be following a process similar to that used with the PA and PB protocols in determining which proposals are adopted as WG drafts. The tentative plan is to hold a virtual meeting in January 2010 (schedule TBD) to discuss the proposals and decide on how to proceed. As always, consensus will be verified on the mailing list.=20 Thanks Susan and Steve From shanna@juniper.net Fri Oct 23 07:43:34 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 CDB5D3A67D9 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:43:34 -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=[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 K32uU4rMSoZp for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51ACC3A6810 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSuHBHDb9G3TX8YJHHW8FwAIFWvP0TXuL@postini.com; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:43:41 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:42:35 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:34 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: NEA Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:40:39 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Nea] IESG query re Expert Review Thread-Index: Aco9/jpLQAiYit3CT5ujEDyWdToz0QV8DNpQ Message-ID: References: <4AB2AD9F.7030107@isode.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Nea] IESG query re Expert Review 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, 23 Oct 2009 14:43:34 -0000 There was not a lot of discussion on this issue but the consensus from the comments posted seems to be that we should follow option a: > a). you update the text to relax instructions for the=20 > designated Expert Reviewer Therefore, the editors of PA-TNC and PB-TNC will soon be posting revised Internet-Drafts that make this change. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:36 PM > To: Alexey Melnikov; Stephen Hanna > Cc: NEA > Subject: Re: [Nea] IESG query re Expert Review >=20 > Alexey makes some very good points here. >=20 > At 10:43 PM +0100 9/17/09, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >The situation I have in mind is as follows: Assume a vendor=20 > A implements some vendor specific attributes. The=20 > implementation becomes widespread and other implementations=20 > would like to implement it as well. Then somebody not working=20 > for vendor A convinces an A's representative to register the=20 > attributes as a favor to the community. The A's=20 > representative tries to do that, but either the documentation=20 > is not quite clear on some details, or it is not always interoperable. > >At this point the registration procedure says that the=20 > expert should reject the registration. The A's representative=20 > doesn't feel obligated to fix documentation, because the=20 > registration was submitted as a service to the community. So,=20 > would rejecting the registration in such a case be worse than=20 > registering something which is not perfect? >=20 > From the experience in other Security WGs, this scenario is=20 > both possible and unfortunate. Worse, people will disagree=20 > with the answer to the last question and will waste a lot of=20 > time that could be used more productively. >=20 > >If the WG group agrees that this might be a problem, then=20 > there are 2 ways to fix this: > >a). you update the text to relax instructions for the=20 > designated Expert Reviewer > >or > >b). the WG can select an Expert Reviewer who is quite=20 > relaxed about the rules and would be flexible about allowing=20 > not-fully-compliant vendor specific registrations. In this=20 > case you don't need to change the document, but there is a=20 > small risk that the designated expert wouldn't be as flexible. >=20 > Relying on (b) for the long term is not a good strategy. I=20 > think (a) is much better. Really, the stability of the=20 > vendor's text is way more important than the correctness. If=20 > the text is bad, anyone who cares will reverse-engineer it=20 > through testing with the vendor's product, and if they're=20 > really nice, will encourage the vendor to update it. >=20 > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > = From root@core3.amsl.com Fri Oct 23 15:00:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietf.org Delivered-To: nea@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0EB813A6896; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091023220002.0EB813A6896@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt 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, 23 Oct 2009 22:00:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group of the IETF. Title : PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute Protocol (PA) Compatible with TNC Author(s) : K. Narayan, P. Sangster Filename : draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt Pages : 86 Date : 2009-10-23 This document specifies PA-TNC, a Posture Attribute Protocol identical to the Trusted Computing Group's IF-M 1.0 protocol. The document then evaluates PA-TNC against the requirements defined in the NEA Requirements specification. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-10-23145136.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Sun Oct 25 04:30:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietf.org Delivered-To: nea@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 15FC13A67F3; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091025113002.15FC13A67F3@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt 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: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:30:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group of the IETF. Title : PB-TNC: A Posture Broker Protocol (PB) Compatible with TNC Author(s) : R. Sahita, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt Pages : 79 Date : 2009-10-25 This document specifies PB-TNC, a Posture Broker Protocol identical to the Trusted Computing Group's IF-TNCCS 2.0 protocol. The document then evaluates PB-TNC against the requirements defined in the NEA Requirements specification. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-10-25041658.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From shanna@juniper.net Sun Oct 25 04:53:13 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 80D7C3A67CF for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:53:13 -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=[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 90CxTWajQmrz for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883263A6767 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSuQ8NCvHHQuEzZ1WyMEpBTeS5J87UPcI@postini.com; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:53:25 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:53:19 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:53:18 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: "nea@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:51:25 -0400 Thread-Topic: What's in draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt Thread-Index: AcpVaXrevI8WkkSpTVuwUaRvB/qIJw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Nea] What's in draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt 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: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:53:13 -0000 I just posted a new version of PB-TNC that changes the IANA Considerations as agreed by the NEA WG, removing the requirement for vendor-specific values to be clear and likely to ensure interoperability. This version also clarifies the definition of PB-Language-Preference and fixes some text that said every PB-TNC batch MUST contain one or more PB-TNC messages. That used to be true when Batch Type was a PB-TNC message but now that it's a header field, there are several types of PB-TNC batches that PB-TNC says may contain zero PB-TNC messages, such as CRETRY and SRETRY batches. I figured that you would like to know what changed. Most of these changes were made in response to IESG comments. The only exception is the change in the minimum number of PB-TNC messages, which was made to resolve an internal contradiction within the spec. Thanks, Steve From sethomso@cisco.com Wed Oct 28 14:20:11 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 E46643A6810 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:20:11 -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=[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 WWhuZqy3FcTX for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:20:11 -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 309BA3A67E1 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANZS6EpAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADCWZgqhD8EgWE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,641,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="262984418" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2009 21:20:26 +0000 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9SLKQZV014172 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:20:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:20:26 -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: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:20:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft agenda for IETF 76 meeting Thread-Index: AcpYFHb1WT2svCVNQeiE3oIY/S+XFA== From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2009 21:20:26.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[7788E190:01CA5814] Subject: [Nea] Draft agenda for IETF 76 meeting 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: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:20:12 -0000 Draft agenda for IETF76 in Japan has been submitted and is attached below. Please send proposed additions/changes to WG chairs. In particular, if you plan to submit a PT proposal in response to the WG call for submissions (see email to NEA WG mailing list Oct 21), and are available to provide a conceptual overview at the IETF76 meeting, please let the chairs know if you have not done so already. This will help us with scheduling.=20 Thanks Susan --------------- Agenda for IETF 76 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: Monday, Nov 9, 2009 Time: 1740-1940=20 WG Charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nea-charter.html WG Tools: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea WG email: nea@ietf.org 1740 Administrivia Blue Sheets Jabber & Minute scribes Agenda bashing 1745 WG Status 1750 Review PB-TNC changes http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-06.txt 1755 Review PA-TNC changes http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt 1800 Process for soliciting proposals on Posture Transport protocol=20 1810 Conceptual overview of Posture Transport protocols 1930 Update Milestones=20 1940 Adjourn From Paul_Sangster@symantec.com Fri Oct 30 08:40:16 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 D95493A67E6 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:16 -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=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 9zu0JoW9NfWx for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from extu-mxob-1.symantec.com (extu-mxob-1.symantec.com [216.10.194.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4293A6782 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tus1opsmtapin01.ges.symantec.com (tus1opsmtapin01.ges.symantec.com [192.168.214.43]) by extu-mxob-1.symantec.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n9UFeQlm030332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:28 -0700 Received: from reserved-155-64-230-19.ges.symantec.com ([155.64.230.19] helo=TUS1XCHECNPIN02.enterprise.veritas.com) by tus1opsmtapin01.ges.symantec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1N3taU-00082C-4F for nea@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:26 -0700 Received: from TUS1XCHEVSPIN05.enterprise.veritas.com ([155.64.231.27]) by TUS1XCHECNPIN02.enterprise.veritas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:26 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA5977.4D0B2AB8" Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:24 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: What's new in PA-TNC 06 revision thread-index: AcpZd0v84lrFtxgVSoG0ytVpoDKqqg== From: "Paul Sangster" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2009 15:40:26.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D058C70:01CA5977] Subject: [Nea] What's new in PA-TNC 06 revision 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, 30 Oct 2009 15:40:17 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA5977.4D0B2AB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Last week I posted a new version of the PA-TNC draft that includes updates to address comments received during the IESG review including those discussed at IETF 75. These revisions include: =20 o Removal of remaining references to PA-TNC security protocol (which the WG opt'ed not to standardize) o Additional text about how PT will protect the PA-TNC message exchanges o Updates to IANA Considerations to lower expectations during expert reviews of vendor-defined values o Clarification on errors when receiving malformed PA-TNC message or attributes =20 Overall the number and size of the changes to the document were small hopefully suggestion we have stability in the specification. =20 Thanks, Paul ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA5977.4D0B2AB8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Last = week I posted a=20 new version of the PA-TNC draft that includes updates to address = comments=20 received during the IESG review including those discussed at IETF = 75. =20 These revisions include:
 
o = Removal of=20 remaining references to PA-TNC security protocol (which the WG opt'ed = not to=20 standardize)
o = Additional text=20 about how PT will protect the PA-TNC message = exchanges
o = Updates to IANA=20 Considerations to lower expectations during expert reviews of=20 vendor-defined values
o = Clarification on=20 errors when receiving malformed PA-TNC message or = attributes
 
Overall the number=20 and size of the changes to the document were small hopefully suggestion = we have=20 stability in the specification.
 
Thanks,
Paul
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA5977.4D0B2AB8--