[Nea] Result of consensus check on NEA protocol proposals and next steps

Based on the mailing list responses, we have confirmed the consensus
check taken at the NEA WG meeting at IETF 71 to:
1. adopt PA-TNC as a WG draft
2. adopt PB-TNC as a WG draft
3. defer action on PA-TNC security until further progress has been made
on PA-TNC and PB-TNC.

Next Steps:

As discussed at the last IETF meeting, the editors of the PA-TNC and
PB-TNC I-Ds will publish these drafts without change as -00 versions of
the NEA WG drafts. 

We will now start to work on -01 version of the drafts. If you have not
done so already, please submit detailed comments regarding both PA and
PB drafts as soon as you can. We would like to set a target date of
getting the first round of comments in by April 25, so that the WG can
discuss these on the mailing list, and the editors of both documents can
draft a -01 version for review based on WG feedback, in a timely manner.

Thanks
Susan and Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Thomson (sethomso) 
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:35 PM
To: nea@ietf.org
Cc: Stephen Hanna
Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea