IDS> Nov. 6 Agenda

IDS> Nov. 6 Agenda

IDS> Nov. 6 Agenda

Dave Whitehead david at lexmark.com
Tue Nov 4 11:49:38 EST 2008


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ids/attachments/20081104/0b642477/attachment.html


More information about the Ids mailing list