Re: [Nea] Protocol names, titles & filenames for PA & PB protocol drafts

["Stephen Hanna" <shanna at juniper.net>]

I don't see a problem here. As stated in the drafts, the TCG is planning
to
adopt TNC protocols equivalent to PA-TNC and PB-TNC when PA-TNC and
PB-TNC
are approved as RFCs by the IETF. So the end result will be that the
IETF
RFCs and the TNC protocols will be equivalent. That is the goal and it's
a good one, I think. Customers want to have one set of standard
protocols,
approved by and agreed on by all parties.  So when we're done, we'll
have
IETF protocols that are compatible with TNC. That's what the titles say.

I do think that the background on TCG and TNC in section 1 of the specs
should be scaled back substantially but I think that we should include
some explanatory text saying that these specs are equivalent to the TNC
specs IF-M 1.0 and IF-TNCCS 2.0 and giving informative references to
those. This will help people who want to find the TNC specs to do so.

What do other people think?

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaushik Narayan [mailto:kaushik at cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:32 PM
To: Paul Sangster; Stephen Hanna; Sahita, Ravi; Ryan Hurst;
nea at ietf.org; Susan Thomson (sethomso)
Subject: Protocol names, titles & filenames for PA & PB protocol drafts

Hi,

The current names of the PA & PB protocol drafts are PA-TNC and PB-TNC
and
the title of both drafts includes "Compatible with TNC". The file names
also
currently include tnc.

I am wondering whether we need a change to titles/names to clarify that
the
WG is not adopting the TNC protocols but using the TNC protocols as an
initial definition (-00 version) to create the NEA PA & PB protocols.

Regards,
 kaushik


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