Subject: [Nea] Submitting PA-TNC and PB-TNC I-Ds to IESG

From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:56:12 -0400

Now that we have completed WG Last Call and have consensus on the
documents:

draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04.txt
draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-04.txt, 

the next step is to submit the documents to the IESG. 

Per RFC 4858, I am the document shepherd for both drafts. The next step
is AD evaluation and IETF Last Call. I will be working with our AD, Tim
Polk, to facilitate this process. Attached are the document write-ups
required by this process. I will keep the WG apprised of progress. The
document status can also be seen in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/

Thanks
Susan

-----------------
Doc shepherd write-up for: draft-ietf-nea-pb-tnc-04.txt

 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the 
       Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
       document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
       version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Susan Thomson ([email-masked]) is document shepherd.
I have reviewed this document and believe this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
      have been performed? 

The document has had adequate review.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
      AAA, internationalization or XML? 

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director 
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he 
      or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or 
      has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any 
      event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated 
      that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those 
      concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
      this issue. 

No concerns or IPR disclosures related to this document. Please see WG
Summary below for additional information.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
      represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with 
      others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and 
      agree with it? 

WG consensus is solid for this document. Please see WG Summary below 
for additional information.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in 
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It 
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is 
      entered into the ID Tracker.) 

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See 
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and 
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. 

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that 
      are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear 
      state? If such normative references exist, what is the 
      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
      so, list these downward references to support the Area 
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

The document has split its references into normative and 
informative. There are no downward references or references to 
documents that are in an unclear state.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
      of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
      the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

Yes.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
      an automated checker? 

No formal language is used.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
      Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
      announcement contains the following sections: 

Technical Summary 

This document defines the PB-TNC protocol. PB-TNC is a Posture 
Broker protocol that aggregates posture attributes between one or 
more Posture Collectors on a NEA client and one or more Posture 
Validators on a NEA server. PB-TNC is equivalent to the 
Trusted Computing Group's IF-TNCCS 2.0 protocol. It addresses the PB 
protocol requirements defined in the NEA requirements specification.

Working Group Summary 

The WG solicited proposals for the PB protocol based on the 
NEA reference model and requirements specified in RFC 5209. The TCG 
submitted a specification to the NEA WG in response to the call for 
proposals. There was broad support in the WG to adopt the submission as 
a WG document. Subsequent WG updates to the document have not been 
contentious.

The protocol document specifies a base protocol and is extensible. 
The WG has discussed the potential for certain optimizations and 
extensions to the above specifications (e.g. assertion attributes). The 
proposed extensions did not share the same level of consensus as the 
base document and also represented significant additional work. The WG 
decided to defer potential extensions to supplemental documents in the 
interests of making progress on the base documents.

Document Quality  

Several vendors have indicated their intention in public or private to 
implement the specification.

Personnel

Susan Thomson is the document shepherd. Tim Polk is the responsible 
Area Director. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document 
<ARE TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.

------------------
Doc shepherd write-up for: draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04.txt

 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the 
       Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
       document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
       version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Susan Thomson ([email-masked]) is document shepherd.
I have reviewed this document and believe this version is ready for 
forwarding to the IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
      have been performed? 

The document has had adequate review.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
      AAA, internationalization or XML? 

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director 
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he 
      or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or 
      has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any 
      event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated 
      that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those 
      concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
      this issue. 

No concerns or IPR disclosures related to this document. Please see WG 
Summary below for additional information.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
      represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with 
      others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and 
      agree with it? 

WG consensus is solid for this document. Please see WG Summary below 
for additional information.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in 
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It 
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is 
      entered into the ID Tracker.) 

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See 
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and 
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. 

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that 
      are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear 
      state? If such normative references exist, what is the 
      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
      so, list these downward references to support the Area 
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

The document has split its references into normative and 
informative. There are no downward references or references to 
documents that are in an unclear state.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
      of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
      the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

Yes.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
      an automated checker? 

No formal language is used.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
      Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
      announcement contains the following sections: 

Technical Summary 

This document defines the PA-TNC protocol. PA-TNC is a Posture 
Attribute protocol that carries posture attributes between a 
Posture Collector on a NEA client and a Posture Validator on a NEA 
server. The PA-TNC protocol is designed to run over the PB-TNC 
protocol. PA-TNC is equivalent to the Trusted Computing 
Group's IF-M 1.0 protocol. It addresses the PA protocol requirements 
defined in the NEA requirements specification.

Working Group Summary 

The WG solicited proposals for the PA protocol based on the 
NEA reference model and requirements specified in RFC 5209. The TCG 
submitted a specification to the NEA WG in response to the call for 
proposals. There was broad support in the WG to adopt the submission as 
a WG document. Subsequent WG updates to the document have not been 
contentious.

The protocol document specifies a base protocol and is extensible. 
The WG has discussed the potential for certain optimizations and 
extensions to the above specifications (e.g. additional standard 
posture attributes). The proposed extensions did not share the same 
level of consensus as the base document and represented significant 
additional work. The WG decided to defer potential extensions to 
supplemental documents in the interests of making progress on the base 
documents.

Document Quality  

Several vendors have indicated their intention in public or private to 
implement the specification.

Personnel

Susan Thomson is the document shepherd. Tim Polk is the responsible 
Area Director. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document 
<ARE TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.