Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC
kaushik <kaushik@cisco.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 23:44 UTC
Return-Path: <kaushik@cisco.com>
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 <nea@core3.amsl.com>; 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 <nea@core3.amsl.com>; 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 <nea@ietf.org>; 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 <kaushik@cisco.com>
To: Paul Sangster <Paul_Sangster@symantec.com>, "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <sethomso@cisco.com>, nea@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C714AF03.C4BA%kaushik@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC
Thread-Index: AcpcDR0+QLbCMJlFSYGAUoTERHgt1gAB6sAgAABuYhU=
In-Reply-To: <AB96CED633A7C246BDC661DBEE1CF01F07F980CD@TUS1XCHCLUPIN11.enterprise.veritas.com>
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 <nea.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nea>
List-Post: <mailto:nea@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=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" <Paul_Sangster@symantec.com> 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
- [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-… Susan Thomson (sethomso)
- Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TN… Paul Sangster
- Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TN… Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TN… kaushik