Subject: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:36:15 -0500

In response to the request for proposals for the PA and PB protocols,
the NEA WG has received three drafts: PA-TNC, PA-TNC Security, and
PB-TNC.  We need to decide whether to adopt these as WG drafts. 

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

Please review these documents to see whether they provide a good basis
for the protocol work to be done and whether they should be adopted as
WG documents. Remember that, as  with any initial version of a WG draft,
there will be opportunity for updating the protocol specifications later
in the process. The main question here is not "are the proposals
perfect?" but "are the proposals a good basis for starting work on PA
and PB?"

With this in mind, please provide comments to the mailing list at
[email-masked] and/or be prepared to make these comments at the upcoming
WG meeting in Philadelphia. An email comment on this topic could be as
simple as "I have reviewed proposal X and believe that we should accept
it as a WG draft", or as complex as a long explanation of a problem that
is not adequately addressed.

You can also provide more detailed comments and corrections to the
protocol now, but these will be retained and considered later in the
process. The intent is not to go into detailed discussions of relatively
minor issues at this point. Major issues are fine to discuss if they
relate to the question of whether we should accept the proposals as WG
drafts.

You might ask "what is the alternative to accepting these documents as
WG drafts?" We could decide to reject one or more of the drafts and
solicit more proposals, request a major change or clarification to a
proposal before we're willing to accept it, or other options.

Please send comments on this topic before the NEA WG meeting at IETF 71
if possible (currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 11 at 9 AM ET), and
no later than 5 PM on Wednesday, March 19. This should allow the WG
chairs to judge consensus in a timely manner and allow the WG to move on
to the hard work of developing the PA and PB protocol specifications.

Thanks for your careful attention to this matter.

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

---

From: 贾科 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:50:27 +0800

Hi, folks
	I am sorry to tell you guys that I will be absent from this meeting
due to the failure of VISA application. But I think I can join in the
discussion via e-mail if I have any specific comments after reading these
new proposals. 

Jack.Chia

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan
Thomson (sethomso)
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

In response to the request for proposals for the PA and PB protocols, the
NEA WG has received three drafts: PA-TNC, PA-TNC Security, and PB-TNC.  We
need to decide whether to adopt these as WG drafts. 

The drafts are:

Please review these documents to see whether they provide a good basis for
the protocol work to be done and whether they should be adopted as WG
documents. Remember that, as  with any initial version of a WG draft, there
will be opportunity for updating the protocol specifications later in the
process. The main question here is not "are the proposals perfect?" but "are
the proposals a good basis for starting work on PA and PB?"

With this in mind, please provide comments to the mailing list at
[email-masked] and/or be prepared to make these comments at the upcoming WG
meeting in Philadelphia. An email comment on this topic could be as simple
as "I have reviewed proposal X and believe that we should accept it as a WG
draft", or as complex as a long explanation of a problem that is not
adequately addressed.

You can also provide more detailed comments and corrections to the protocol
now, but these will be retained and considered later in the process. The
intent is not to go into detailed discussions of relatively minor issues at
this point. Major issues are fine to discuss if they relate to the question
of whether we should accept the proposals as WG drafts.

You might ask "what is the alternative to accepting these documents as WG
drafts?" We could decide to reject one or more of the drafts and solicit
more proposals, request a major change or clarification to a proposal before
we're willing to accept it, or other options.

Please send comments on this topic before the NEA WG meeting at IETF 71 if
possible (currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 11 at 9 AM ET), and no
later than 5 PM on Wednesday, March 19. This should allow the WG chairs to
judge consensus in a timely manner and allow the WG to move on to the hard
work of developing the PA and PB protocol specifications.

---

From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:51:49 -0500

Yes, please join in the email discussion. The NEA WG
chairs will look to the email discussion to determine
WG consensus, not to in-person discussions. That's
the IETF way. So I'm sorry that you can't come to
Philadelphia but this should not prevent your active
participation in the discussion on this topic.

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ??
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Hi, folks

Jack.Chia

-----Original Message-----

The drafts are:

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:52:59 -0800

Steve - do the ISOC code of conduct rules bring into play any NEA issues? 
including the IP support requirements? I ask this because those rules do 
apply to other IETF efforts.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "??" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

> protocol

---

From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:58:21 -0500

The same rules apply to NEA that apply to other IETF efforts.

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Stephen Hanna; ??; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Steve - do the ISOC code of conduct rules bring into play any NEA
issues? 
including the IP support requirements? I ask this because those rules do

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "??" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

> In response to the request for proposals for the PA and PB protocols,
the
> Please review these documents to see whether they provide a good basis
for
> process. The main question here is not "are the proposals perfect?"
but 
> "are
WG
> as "I have reviewed proposal X and believe that we should accept it as
a 
> WG
> intent is not to go into detailed discussions of relatively minor
issues 
> at
WG

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:25:53 -0800

Steve, thanks for responding but what I asked isn't what you answered. What 
I asked was if the ISOC rules applied here.

If the answer is NO then I need to know that. So the question is re-asked 
again...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "??" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Stephen Hanna; ??; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "??" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

the
for
but
WG
a
issues
WG

---

From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:14:18 -0500

Are you referring to this code of conduct?

http://www.isoc.org/members/codeconduct.shtml

If so, this does not seem to be a set of rules for
IETF activities. It instead says that it is a "code
of conduct" intended to "indicate the standard of
professional behaviour to which ISOC members aspire,
and which is intended to be an example to Internet
professionals as a whole."

The principles espoused in this code seem to be
admirable but they do not seem to be "rules" that
are binding on all IETF activities. If you can
point to an RFC or other official IETF document
that says otherwise, please send the URL.

If an extended discussion of this topic ensues,
I'll have to refer it to another email list.
There is nothing NEA-specific to the discussion.

Thanks,

Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Stephen Hanna; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Steve, thanks for responding but what I asked isn't what you answered.
What 
I asked was if the ISOC rules applied here.

If the answer is NO then I need to know that. So the question is
re-asked 
again...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "??" <[email-masked]>;

<[email-masked]>

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Stephen Hanna; ??; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "??" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

the
for
but
WG
a
issues
WG

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:52:21 -0800

That's one of the problems,  see that code of conduct DOES effect the IETF 
unless there is some formal agreement between the Incorporated IETF and the 
ISOC to allow the IETF to violate the terms and conditions under which the 
NTIA MOU was given to the ISOC, i.e. that being the only reason the IETF 
exists as it does today as a Business Unit of the IETF.

I am also taking this up with the IETF's counsel and the Chair, but I wanted 
to see how this WG reacted.

I will transfer anymore commentary to the [email-masked] mailing list.

Thanks for responding.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Stephen Hanna; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "??" <[email-masked]>;

<[email-masked]>

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Stephen Hanna; ??; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
To: "??" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] Process for reviewing PA and PB candidate proposals

the
for
but
WG
a
issues
WG

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:53:55 -0800

Ohhhh wait - its the ISOC who is incorporated and not the IETF... Sorry...

Todd