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

[kaushik <kaushik at cisco.com>]

I support these changes as well.


On 11/2/09 3:33 PM, "Paul Sangster" <Paul_Sangster at symantec.com> wrote:

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