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

[Scott Brim <scott.brim at gmail.com>]

kaushik allegedly wrote on 06/17/2009 7:14 PM:
> 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

OK, in that case the IETF spec is authoritative, but the draft says

  In order to avoid the development of multiple incompatible standards
  in this area, the TCG offered several of its TNC standards to the IETF
  as candidates for standardization in the IETF also.  This document is
  one of those standards, known in the IETF as PA-TNC and in the TCG as
  IF-M 1.0.  PA-TNC and IF-M 1.0 are equivalent.

Maybe I misunderstood the wording.  The way I read it, the TCG offered
its standards for standardization in the IETF "also" ("also" means both
organizations work on it) and this document "is" one of those standards
(meaning this document does not include further development, it simply
"is" what was given to the IETF).

Are you saying that when they "offered" their standard, they also handed
over authority for its further development?  That would be fine.
organizations working on a single protocol, and I always want one of
them to clearly "hold the pen".  Even when one is "closely tracking" the
other, parallel standards can lead to ambiguities in how certain fields
are used, for example.  It's better to have one authority, and one
document.  Anyway, as I said I believe it's ready for standardization,
but I hope you take steps to avoid future ambiguity.

Thanks ... Scott