Next IDS WG teleconference Thursday 6 November 1pm EST
Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)
Attendee Access Code: *******#
Attendee ID Code: # (empty)
If you need the Attendee Access code, please email me a request.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As sent in Dave's HTML message, those links with concatenated (.doc)
> were BROKEN.
>> Clean links:
>> Attributes: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-20081023.pdf>> NAP Binding: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20081023.pdf>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> 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 ???)