Hi,
Note that the PT-EAP (layer 2 initial endpoint assessment
transport) is in the RFC Editor's Queue awaiting publication
of IETF standards-track Tunneled EAP later this year - see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method/
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - PT-EAP was the last work item in the IETF NEA WG charter.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Subject: [Nea] Protocol Action: 'PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol
For EAP Tunnel Methods' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-09.txt)
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
Cc: nea mailing list <nea at ietf.org>, nea chair <nea-chairs at tools.ietf.org>,
RFC Editor <rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods'
(draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-09.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Stephen Farrell and Sean Turner.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap/
Technical Summary
This document specifies PT-EAP, an Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) based Posture Transport (PT) protocol designed to be used only
inside a TLS protected EAP tunnel method. The document also
describes the intended applicability of PT-EAP.
Working Group Summary
In the call for proposals for Posture Transport (PT) specifications, there
were two submissions for an EAP-based PT: one using an EAP method
within an EAP tunnel method, and the other using a TLV format within an
EAP tunnel method. Many discussions were had in the WG on the pros and
cons of each approach. No consensus could be reached. Hence, the AD of
the Working Group (Stephen Farrell) made the selection with the
agreement that the WG would abide by the decision. Stephen selected the
EAP method approach in a message to the NEA WG dated 24 Aug 2011
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nea/current/msg01187.html). The
WG then adopted the EAP method proposal as a WG document, and
followed the normal process from there. There is WG consensus to move
this document forward.
Document Quality
There are no known vendor implementations of this particular
specification,
but there are existing implementations of an EAP method which is similar
to
what is currently specified. This document was reviewed by several people
in the EMU WG, and no objections were raised.
Personnel
Susan Thomson is the Document Shepherd.
Stephen Farrell is the Area Director.
RFC Editor Note
- draft-ietf-nea-asokan has been published as RFC 6813
- draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls has been published as RFC 6876
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea at ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ids/attachments/20130401/c0df57ad/attachment-0001.html>