Subject: [Nea] Judging consensus on NEA protocol proposals

From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:34:32 -0400

In a previous email to the NEA WG mailing list prior to the IETF, we
requested feedback regarding adopting the following Internet Drafts as
WG drafts for PA, PB, PA Security respectively. The drafts are:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sahita-nea-pb-tnc-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-security-00.txt

At IETF 71, we reviewed these proposals and the following consensus
question was raised for each draft: "Do you support adopting the draft
as a WG draft?"
1. Yes
2. No
3. Defer

1) means that the draft is regarded as a good foundation for a WG -00
draft. It does NOT mean adopting the draft "AS IS". The draft will be
treated as any I-D -00 version where updates are made based on WG
consensus. 
2) means that the draft would not form a good basis for a WG draft. 
3) means to defer a decision based on some further action taking place.

The clear consensus at the meeting at IETF 71 was to support adopting
PA-TNC and PB-TNC as WG drafts, and to defer the decision on the
adoption of PA-TNC Security until more work has been done on the PA and
PB protocols so that the security implications are better understood.

We need to confirm this consensus on the NEA WG email list. Please
respond to this email and indicate if you agree or disagree with the
decisions above. Even if you participated in the discussion and
consensus check at IETF 71, it is important for you to participate in
this email consensus check. A simple "Agree" email will suffice, but if
you disagree with a decision on any one of the drafts, or want to say
more, a longer email is certainly OK also. If there is no consensus, we
will need to discuss the matter by email until we can reach rough
consensus.

This consensus check will close after one week (at 5 PM EDT on Friday,
March 28).

Thanks
Susan and Steve
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:07:54 +0100

> PB protocols so that the security implications are better understood.

agree

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:39:53 +0100

agree with all three decisions

-- 
Stefan WINTER

Stiftung RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de 
la Recherche
Ingenieur Forschung & Entwicklung

6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg
E-Mail: [email-masked]     Tel.:     +352 424409-1
http://www.restena.lu                Fax:      +352 422473
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

---

From: Wei Jiwei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:43:48 +0800

Agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan
Thomson (sethomso)
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Nea] Judging consensus on NEA protocol proposals

In a previous email to the NEA WG mailing list prior to the IETF, we
requested feedback regarding adopting the following Internet Drafts as WG
drafts for PA, PB, PA Security respectively. The drafts are:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sahita-nea-pb-tnc-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/draft-sangster-nea-pa-tnc-security-00.txt

At IETF 71, we reviewed these proposals and the following consensus question
was raised for each draft: "Do you support adopting the draft as a WG
draft?"
1. Yes
2. No
3. Defer

1) means that the draft is regarded as a good foundation for a WG -00 draft.
It does NOT mean adopting the draft "AS IS". The draft will be treated as
any I-D -00 version where updates are made based on WG consensus.
2) means that the draft would not form a good basis for a WG draft.
3) means to defer a decision based on some further action taking place.

The clear consensus at the meeting at IETF 71 was to support adopting PA-TNC
and PB-TNC as WG drafts, and to defer the decision on the adoption of PA-TNC
Security until more work has been done on the PA and PB protocols so that
the security implications are better understood.

We need to confirm this consensus on the NEA WG email list. Please respond
to this email and indicate if you agree or disagree with the decisions
above. Even if you participated in the discussion and consensus check at
IETF 71, it is important for you to participate in this email consensus
check. A simple "Agree" email will suffice, but if you disagree with a
decision on any one of the drafts, or want to say more, a longer email is
certainly OK also. If there is no consensus, we will need to discuss the
matter by email until we can reach rough consensus.

This consensus check will close after one week (at 5 PM EDT on Friday, March
28).

Thanks
Susan and Steve

---

From: "Gene Chang (genchang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:30:32 -0400

Agree...it is a good starting point...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Eugene Chang (genchang)
Cisco Systems
Office:   603-559-2978
Mobile:  781-799-0233
Skype:  gene02421

---

From: Han Yin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:16:12 +0800

>PB protocols so that the security implications are better understood.
Agree

---

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:33:15 -0700

Agree with room concensus