Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC

["Paul Sangster" <Paul_Sangster at symantec.com>]

I support the changes. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nea-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Susan Thomson (sethomso)
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: nea at ietf.org
> Cc: tim.polk at nist.gov
> Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on changes to PB-TNC I-D since WGLC
> 
> The IESG has completed its evaluation of the PA-TNC and 
> PB-TNC drafts, and is ready to approve publication.  However, 
> the PB-TNC draft includes significant changes to the pb-tnc 
> state machine, as well as additional PT requirements, and the 
> AD and WG chairs would like to confirm that working group has 
> reviewed these changes and is comfortable with the result.
> 
> Specifically, the CLOSE batch type was introduced and error 
> handling was tightened up to address issues raised by members 
> of the IESG. These changes are incorporated in the -06 draft 
> of pb-tnc, and appear throughout section 4 (including its 
> subsections). The additional PT requirements are listed in a 
> new section in Section 3.3.1.
> 
> Please review these changes and respond by Mon, Nov 16, 5pm PT.
> Indicate in your response whether you support the changes. If 
> you do, a short response indicating this is all that is 
> necessary. If you do not, please explain your concern and how 
> the issue can be resolved.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Susan & Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
>