IDS> Nov. 6 Agenda

From: Dave Whitehead (david@lexmark.com)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2008 - 11:49:38 EST

  • Next message: Dave Whitehead: "IDS> Comments on 10/23 documents"

    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: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/
    wd-idsattributes10-20081023.pdf (.doc)
    NAP Binding: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20081023.pdf
    (.doc)

    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 04 2008 - 11:49:51 EST