RE: [Nea] Updated problem statement I-D

["Blumenthal, Uri" <uri.blumenthal at intel.com>]

Susan,

 

Great job! 

 

I'm especially happy to see the explicit IF-PV protocol there - as IMHO it is _far_ more likely that the Validator will be separated from the Server broker. 

 

Regards,

Uri.

---

From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) [mailto:sethomso at cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:47 PM
To: nea at ietf.org
Subject: [Nea] Updated problem statement I-D

I have sent the updated problem statement I-D to the IETF secretariat for publication. In the meantime, have attached the document for your review.

 

The I-D has been updated to be  consistent with the proposed WG charter and to take into account  comments received on the mailing list. (The proposed charter will need to be tweaked to reflect new names for some of the interfaces). 

 

Main Changes:

--- Terminology changed to that suggested by Mauricio Sanchez in his comments to mailing list

--- Emphasized throughout that focus not on new architecture, but interoperability

--- Put an explicit stake in the ground that the initial focus is on an EAP/Radius instantiation of an NEA architecture

--- Identified the 2 EAP protocols at IF-PT layer as IF-PTT (EAP tunneling method) and IF-PTC (EAP carrier protocol).

--- For convenience, mapped NEA terminology with that used in 3 existing architectures: TNC, NAP, NAC

--- References added

 

Feedback appreciated, especially where there may be lack of clarity or disagreement that may preclude a successful BoF. Better to air these on the mailing list now so that we can attempt to address them prior to the BoF.

 

Thanks

Steve & Susan

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea