attachment

Below is the agenda for Thursdays conference call.   Please review the updated documents (attributes/NAP Binding) before the meeting and send any comments to the mailing list. Attributes: <a href=ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-20081023.pdf (.doc)</a> NAP Binding: <a href=ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20081023.pdf (.doc)</a> Thanks, dhw David H. Whitehead Development Engineer Lexmark International, Inc. 859.825.4914 davidatlexmarkdotcom ======================================== IDS Agenda Minutes Taker PWG IP Policy Statement:  Reminder of IP policy. Accept last CC minutes Accept F2F minutes Old Business         Call for Editors.                 Binding document(s) are in need of an Editor.         Review documents                 IDS Attributes                 NAP Binding                 NEA Binding -- need to start                 Attribute Mappings -- need to complete Review Action Items         Joe Murdock will add NAP protocol information to document and update the conformance section.         Randy Turner will try to find other contacts that would be willing to work with the PWG to help deploy NEA         health assessment. (Juniper, Symantec, Cisco are suggested candidates.) Is                 someone willing to sit down with the PWG and “have discussions”?         Questions for Microsoft.         1.  The NAP spec states UTF-8 string encoding and TLV elements.  There is also a statement about strings being NULL terminated.  We believe the NULL terminator was inadvertently                 added since it is not required         for TLV elements.  That is, do we really need NULL termination?         2.  Is it Microsoft's current and future desire/intent/direction for strings to be UTF-8 encoded?         3.  Is Microsoft planning any type of interoperability between NAP and Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) from the TNC?  Maybe a gateway?         4.  What happens when a device passes assessment under one mechanism but then is challenged again?  For example, first over 802.1x to attach and then DHCP to receive an address.  Do         we need to start the assessment again from scratch or is there a shortcut?         5.   It looks like most, if not all, of the evaluation attributes will be extensions to NAP.  The only NAP attribute that may be applicable is the Product Name.  Is it appropriate for the PWG to use         Product Name         or should we define all our attributes as extensions?         6.  How can we get the extended PWG attributes to be recognized by the Microsoft validator/assessor?  Is this a plug-in supplied by a third party?  If this is an industry supported solution,                 would Microsoft be willing to supply any required plug-in?         7.  Just to make sure we understand it, the PWG members would really like someone familiar with NAP to         profile how it would operate with print devices.  Would this be possible? New Business Prototypes Next F2F: December 3-5, Hosted by Samsung. Next CC: November 20 (13th ???) Adjourn