[saag] NEA WG report

Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net> Tue, 24 March 2009 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <shanna@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D1A28C0E6 for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, 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 prd4XHM0-AnF for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3E93A68B1 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSclkBjBPLz3S6QfD8I0u58seUNjl1T9n@postini.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:51:51 PDT
Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:49:54 -0700
Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:49:54 -0700
Received: from antipi.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.34]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:49:54 -0700
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by antipi.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:49:53 -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: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:49:47 -0400
Message-ID: <A6398B0DB62A474C82F61554EE937287078291E8@proton.jnpr.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: NEA WG report
Thread-Index: AcmsH8hXHsgwY+dwSw2KhPdJ5ABQdAAqbGlg
From: Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>
To: saag@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2009 22:49:53.0108 (UTC) FILETIME=[D86FB940:01C9ACD2]
Subject: [saag] NEA WG report
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:51:01 -0000

The IETF NEA WG met on Monday afternoon.

We reviewed the changes in our current Internet Drafts,
draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-03.txt and draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-03.txt.
We also discussed the comments received in the recently
closed Working Group Last Call. The spec editors presented
proposals to address all the comments and no concerns
were raised. These proposals will now be forwarded to
the NEA WG email list to verify WG consensus. Then new
versions of the specs will be prepared and these versions
will be submitted to the IESG for their review, requesting
approval as Standards Track RFCs. This will complete our
current set of milestones.

Discussion then turned to our next steps. We need to identify
or develop PT standards since this is the last thing needed to
have fully interoperable systems based on the NEA protocols.
We need to recharter slightly to work on PT since our current
charter says that we won't do anything else until PA and PB
are done.

Tim Polk (our AD) said that we can start work on rechartering
as soon as we have sent PA and PB to him. He suggested that
our recharter focus only on PT for now. Other work related to
NEA (like Assertion Attributes) can proceed as individual
submissions, which can be discussed in the NEA WG and adopted
as WG drafts via rechartering when they are sufficiently mature.