Re: [Nea] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard

[Stephen Hanna <[e-mail]>]

SM wrote:
> It's a matter of mentioning the down-ref in the Last Call announcement.

I understand that we COULD request approval for a downward reference.
We'd need to restart the IETF Last Call in order to do so but if that's
the right thing to do, we can do it.

I just don't see why we need a downref. Yes, you should understand the
NEA reference model while building an implementation of PT-EAP. You also
should understand the EAP architecture and PB-TNC and lots of other things.
That doesn't mean that all those things should be normative references.
RFC 5209 doesn't include ANY normative text that would affect implementers
of PT-EAP. An informative reference seems more appropriate to me. And
that's what we did for all the other NEA specs (PA-TNC, PB-TNC, and
PT-TLS). PB-TNC (RFC 5793) includes basically the same language as PT-EAP:

1.1.  Prerequisites

   This document does not define an architecture or reference model.
   Instead, it defines a protocol that works within the reference model
   described in the NEA Requirements specification [8].  The reader is
   assumed to be thoroughly familiar with that document.  No familiarity
   with TCG specifications is assumed.

Still, I know that the IETF process can be unpredictable. If we
now think that we need to have a normative reference in this spec,
we can change it and run the IETF Last Call process again, requesting
approval for a downref to RFC 5209.

What is the sense of the Working Group? Any guidance from the ADs?

Thanks,

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SM [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:47 PM
> To: Stephen Hanna
> Cc: [e-mail]; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06.txt> (PT-EAP: Posture
> Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> At 14:17 14-01-2013, Stephen Hanna wrote:
> >Changing our reference to RFC 5209 to be normative may cause
> >more problems than it solves. As RFC 3967 (BCP 97) says,
> 
> Yes.
> 
>  From Section 1.1:
> 
>    "The reader is assumed to be thoroughly familiar with that
>     document." (RFC 5209)
> 
> > > IETF procedures generally require that a standards track RFC
> > > may not have a normative reference to another standards track
> > > document at a lower maturity level or to a non standards track
> > > specification (other than specifications from other standards
> > > bodies). For example, a standards track document may not have
> > > a normative reference to an informational RFC.
> 
> It's a matter of mentioning the down-ref in the Last Call announcement.
> 
> >If I've missed something (e.g. a reason why the reference should
> >be normative), please explain it more clearly.
> 
> See above.  I flagged it as the matter may be raised as an issue.  I
> am ok with whatever the WG decides.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
>