|
I support these modifications.
.
Regards
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:20 PM
Subject: [Nea] Verifying WG consensus on spec
changes
PA-TNC and PB-TNC recently completed WG LC. The
only
comments received were from Susan Thomson.
These comments have been
discussed on the email
list and the NEA WG F2F meeting at IETF 74.
So
far, the WG seems to have consensus for the
changes listed
below.
I'd like to verify this consensus on the mailing
list. Please
review the changes listed below and
respond within one week (by 11 AM EDT
on Monday,
April 13). Indicate in your response whether you
support the
changes. If you support the changes,
a one word response ("Support") is
sufficient.
If not, please explain your concerns and suggest
how they
could be resolved.
Thanks for your prompt and careful attention
to
this matter. Once we agree on changes, we can
revise these specs and
send them to the
IESG.
Thanks,
Steve
----------
Proposed Changes to
PA-TNC
In the description of the Version field in section
3.7,
change the text that says "Implementations responding
to a PA-TNC
message containing a supported version SHOULD
use the same Version number"
to say MUST instead.
Remove the first two sentences of the next
paragraph.
These describe using version 0 for version discovery.
The WG
has decided to remove that feature. Merge the
remaining sentence of this
paragraph with the previous
paragraph and emphasize that the Version Not
Supported
error code must go in a PA-TNC message with version 1.
This
point is already mentioned in section 4.2.8.2 but
it's a good idea to
mention it here, too.
In section 4.2.8.2, change both instances of
SHOULD to
MUST in the fourth paragraph to remove needless
ambiguity.
In the description of the Message Identifier field
in
section 3.7, change the second sentence to be "This value
can be
included in the payload of a response message to
indicate which message was
received and caused the response."
Change the third sentence to say "This
value is included
in the payload of PA-TNC error messages so the party
who
receives the error message can determine which of the
messages they
had sent caused the error."
Proposed Changes to PB-TNC
In
section 3.1, clarify the second sentence of the second
paragraph by
changing "batches of messages" to "a single
batch of messages". The
resulting sentence will read
"In this mode, the Posture Broker Client and
Posture
Broker Server take turns sending a single batch of messages
to
each other."
Change version handling to match PA-TNC. Among other
changes,
the Version field will become one byte long and a Version
Not
Supported error code will be added. Some differences
will remain. For
example, certain PB-TNC version numbers
are reserved to ensure that PB-TNC
batches can be distinguished
from similar protocols previously defined by
other parties.
The version number defined for the initial version of
PB-TNC
will remain 2. Reserved version numbers will be listed.
In
section 4.6, say that the Posture Broker Server MUST NOT
include a message
of type PB-Assessment-Result in a batch
whose type is not RESULT. This was
a SHOULD NOT. Also, fix
a typo in this section where
PB-Access-Recommendation should
be PB-Assessment-Result.
In section
4.7, say that the Posture Broker Server MUST NOT
include a message of type
PB-Access-Recommendation in a batch
whose type is not RESULT. This was a
SHOULD NOT. Also, say
that the Posture Broker Server MAY include one
message of
this type in any batch of type RESULT. That was a
SHOULD.
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing
list
Nea at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
|
