Re: [Nea] gen-art review of draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04

[kaushik <kaushik at cisco.com>]

Hi Scott,

The IETF specification is authoritative as far as the PA & PB protocols
defined by the NEA WG since it represents work done by the IETF community on
the -00 version of the specification that was submitted by TNC. Contributors
to the PA & PB protocols in the NEA-WG include individuals who are not part
of TNC. TNC has decided to closely track the IETF specification to avoid
incompatibilities.

Regards,
 kaushik


On 6/17/09 6:33 AM, "Scott Brim" <scott.brim at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04
> Reviewer: Scott Brim
> Review Date: Jun 17, 2009
> 
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> Because this draft is primarily meant to clone a standard from outside
> of the IETF, I have essentially nothing to say about the content.  It
> seems internally consistent, but I cannot compare it to the original.
> 
> However, a major goal is to "avoid the development of multiple
> incompatible standards in this area", and every time you have multiple
> authoritative copies of something you run the risk of divergence.  It
> would be great if the protocol specification sections were not published
> at all and people were referred to the base standard!  That runs into
> IETF procedural mud, so instead I suggest an explicit statement along
> the lines of:
> 
>   This document is not authoritative on the protocol described.  The
>   authoritative document is, and will be, the Trusted Computing Group
>   standard [6].
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Scott
>