As sent in Dave's HTML message, those links with concatenated (.doc)
NAP Binding: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20081023.pdf
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Dave Whitehead <david at lexmark.com> wrote:
>> 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)
>> David H. Whitehead
> Development Engineer
> Lexmark International, Inc.
>> 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
>> 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
>> Next F2F: December 3-5, Hosted by Samsung.
>> Next CC: November 20 (13th ???)
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839