From sethomso@cisco.com Mon Nov 2 14:37:36 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 C78193A6919 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:37:36 -0800 (PST) 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 ZHd+vlh6bHKf for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E319A3A6902 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:37:35 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAFLu7kpAZnwM/2dsb2JhbADFI5cThDwE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,670,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="66100361" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2009 22:37:55 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.171]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA2Mbtq8024784; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:37:55 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-105.cisco.com ([72.163.62.147]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:37:55 -0600 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, 2 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600 Message-ID: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC09935B@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC Thread-Index: AcpcDR0+QLbCMJlFSYGAUoTERHgt1g== From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 22:37:55.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EBD67A0:01CA5C0D] Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:37:36 -0000 The IESG has completed its evaluation of the PA-TNC and PB-TNC drafts, and is ready to approve publication. However, the PB-TNC draft includes significant changes to the pb-tnc state machine, as well as additional PT=20 requirements, and the AD and WG chairs would like to confirm that working group=20 has reviewed these changes and is comfortable with the result. Specifically, the CLOSE batch type was introduced and error handling was tightened up to address issues raised by members of the IESG. These changes are incorporated in the -06 draft of pb-tnc, and appear throughout section 4 (including its subsections). The additional PT requirements are listed in a new=20 section in Section 3.3.1. Please review these changes and respond by Mon, Nov 16, 5pm PT. Indicate in your response whether you support the changes. If you do, a short response indicating this is all that is necessary. If you do not, please explain your concern and how the issue can be resolved. Thanks, Susan & Steve From Paul_Sangster@symantec.com Mon Nov 2 15:32:57 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 C94403A6933 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:32:57 -0800 (PST) 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 1qFDtlWa86sJ for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from extu-mxob-1.symantec.com (extu-mxob-1.symantec.com [216.10.194.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B003A67F4 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com (tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com [192.168.214.44]) by extu-mxob-1.symantec.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nA2NXC5t004887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:33:12 -0800 Received: from reserved-155-64-230-18.ges.symantec.com ([155.64.230.18] helo=TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com) by tus1opsmtapin02.ges.symantec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1N56Oe-0004YB-0U; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:12 -0800 Received: from TUS1XCHEVSPIN05.enterprise.veritas.com ([155.64.231.27]) by TUS1XCHECNPIN01.enterprise.veritas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:33:12 -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 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:33:09 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC09935B@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC thread-index: AcpcDR0+QLbCMJlFSYGAUoTERHgt1gAB6sAg References: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC09935B@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.com> From: "Paul Sangster" To: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 23:33:12.0309 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7CC9250:01CA5C14] Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov Subject: Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:32:57 -0000 I support the changes.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso) > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:38 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov > Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC >=20 > The IESG has completed its evaluation of the PA-TNC and=20 > PB-TNC drafts, and is ready to approve publication. However,=20 > the PB-TNC draft includes significant changes to the pb-tnc=20 > state machine, as well as additional PT requirements, and the=20 > AD and WG chairs would like to confirm that working group has=20 > reviewed these changes and is comfortable with the result. >=20 > Specifically, the CLOSE batch type was introduced and error=20 > handling was tightened up to address issues raised by members=20 > of the IESG. These changes are incorporated in the -06 draft=20 > of pb-tnc, and appear throughout section 4 (including its=20 > subsections). The additional PT requirements are listed in a=20 > new section in Section 3.3.1. >=20 > Please review these changes and respond by Mon, Nov 16, 5pm PT. > Indicate in your response whether you support the changes. If=20 > you do, a short response indicating this is all that is=20 > necessary. If you do not, please explain your concern and how=20 > the issue can be resolved. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Susan & Steve > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 From shanna@juniper.net Mon Nov 2 15:43:59 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 A0D1C3A690A for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:43:59 -0800 (PST) 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 Nu2I2FrWyyJ7 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1B73A6867 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSu9u0ClMmVowwX/RUwrsEf0x/gfwBID6@postini.com; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:44:18 PST 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; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:41:50 -0800 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; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:41:49 -0500 From: Stephen Hanna To: "nea@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:39:58 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC Thread-Index: AcpcDR0+QLbCMJlFSYGAUoTERHgt1gAB6sAgAAAzwsA= Message-ID: References: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC09935B@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.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 Cc: "tim.polk@nist.gov" Subject: Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:43:59 -0000 I also support the changes. Thanks to the IESG for providing careful review and valuable feedback from all perspectives on these specifications. The resulting specifications are much better as a result of this review and the resulting changes. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Paul Sangster > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 6:33 PM > To: Susan Thomson (sethomso); nea@ietf.org > Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov > Subject: Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC=20 > I-D since WGLC >=20 > I support the changes.=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso) > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:38 PM > > To: nea@ietf.org > > Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov > > Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D=20 > since WGLC > >=20 > > The IESG has completed its evaluation of the PA-TNC and=20 > > PB-TNC drafts, and is ready to approve publication. However,=20 > > the PB-TNC draft includes significant changes to the pb-tnc=20 > > state machine, as well as additional PT requirements, and the=20 > > AD and WG chairs would like to confirm that working group has=20 > > reviewed these changes and is comfortable with the result. > >=20 > > Specifically, the CLOSE batch type was introduced and error=20 > > handling was tightened up to address issues raised by members=20 > > of the IESG. These changes are incorporated in the -06 draft=20 > > of pb-tnc, and appear throughout section 4 (including its=20 > > subsections). The additional PT requirements are listed in a=20 > > new section in Section 3.3.1. > >=20 > > Please review these changes and respond by Mon, Nov 16, 5pm PT. > > Indicate in your response whether you support the changes. If=20 > > you do, a short response indicating this is all that is=20 > > necessary. If you do not, please explain your concern and how=20 > > the issue can be resolved. > >=20 > > Thanks, > >=20 > > Susan & Steve > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > = From kaushik@cisco.com Mon Nov 2 15:44:53 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 773913A67F4 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:44:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 nC2TofVdh3ye for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C2F3A67D7 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:44:52 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAI/97kqrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACbOqlclxSEPQSJAA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,670,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="423267298" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2009 23:45:12 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA2NjCIC009571; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:45:12 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:45:12 -0800 Received: from 171.69.152.194 ([171.69.152.194]) by xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:45:12 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.0.0.071130 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:45:07 -0800 From: kaushik To: Paul Sangster , "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC Thread-Index: AcpcDR0+QLbCMJlFSYGAUoTERHgt1gAB6sAgAABuYhU= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 23:45:12.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[853B1C80:01CA5C16] Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov Subject: Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:44:53 -0000 I support these changes as well. On 11/2/09 3:33 PM, "Paul Sangster" wrote: > I support the changes. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso) >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:38 PM >> To: nea@ietf.org >> Cc: tim.polk@nist.gov >> Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC >> >> The IESG has completed its evaluation of the PA-TNC and >> PB-TNC drafts, and is ready to approve publication. However, >> the PB-TNC draft includes significant changes to the pb-tnc >> state machine, as well as additional PT requirements, and the >> AD and WG chairs would like to confirm that working group has >> reviewed these changes and is comfortable with the result. >> >> Specifically, the CLOSE batch type was introduced and error >> handling was tightened up to address issues raised by members >> of the IESG. These changes are incorporated in the -06 draft >> of pb-tnc, and appear throughout section 4 (including its >> subsections). The additional PT requirements are listed in a >> new section in Section 3.3.1. >> >> Please review these changes and respond by Mon, Nov 16, 5pm PT. >> Indicate in your response whether you support the changes. If >> you do, a short response indicating this is all that is >> necessary. If you do not, please explain your concern and how >> the issue can be resolved. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Susan & Steve >> _______________________________________________ >> Nea mailing list >> Nea@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >> > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Sat Nov 7 20:38:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietf.org Delivered-To: nea@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6F2E53A69BA; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:38:33 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: <20091108043833.6F2E53A69BA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:38:33 -0800 (PST) Cc: Internet Architecture Board , nea mailing list , nea chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Nea] Protocol Action: 'PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute Protocol (PA) Compatible with TNC' to Proposed Standard 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, 08 Nov 2009 04:38:33 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute Protocol (PA) Compatible with TNC ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-06.txt Technical Summary This document defines the PA-TNC protocol. PA-TNC is a Posture Attribute protocol that carries posture attributes between a Posture Collector on a NEA client and a Posture Validator on a NEA server. The PA-TNC protocol is designed to run over the PB-TNC protocol. PA-TNC is equivalent to the Trusted Computing Group's IF-M 1.0 protocol. It addresses the PA protocol requirements defined in the NEA requirements specification. Working Group Summary The WG solicited proposals for the PA protocol based on the NEA reference model and requirements specified in RFC 5209. The TCG submitted a specification to the NEA WG in response to the call for proposals. There was broad support in the WG to adopt the submission as a WG document. Subsequent WG updates to the document have not been contentious. The protocol document specifies a base protocol and is extensible. The WG has discussed the potential for certain optimizations and extensions to the above specifications (e.g. additional standard posture attributes). The proposed extensions did not share the same level of consensus as the base document and represented significant additional work. The WG decided to defer potential extensions to supplemental documents in the interests of making progress on the base documents. Document Quality Several vendors have indicated their intention in public or private to implement the specification. Personnel Susan Thomson is the document shepherd. Tim Polk is the responsible Area Director.