Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC
"Paul Sangster" <Paul_Sangster@symantec.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <Paul_Sangster@symantec.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 C94403A6933 for <nea@core3.amsl.com>; 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 <nea@core3.amsl.com>; 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 <nea@ietf.org>; 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 <Paul_Sangster@symantec.com>) 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, 02 Nov 2009 16:33:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AB96CED633A7C246BDC661DBEE1CF01F07F980CD@TUS1XCHCLUPIN11.enterprise.veritas.com>
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 <Paul_Sangster@symantec.com>
To: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <sethomso@cisco.com>, nea@ietf.org
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 <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 23:32:57 -0000
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] 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