Subject: [saag] NEA WG summary for IETF 77

From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:04:51 -0500

WG Status and Progress since last IETF:
PA-TNC and PB-TNC were published as RFC 5792 and RFC 5793 in March 2010.
Three proposals were submitted in response to the call for submissions
for proposals for the Posture Transport (PT) protocol: one submission
proposed a TLS-based protocol, and two others proposed an EAP-based
protocol.

Meeting Summary:
These proposals were discussed at a virtual interim meeting held in
January 2010, and again at the meeting this week. While there is
consensus that there is a requirement for both a TLS-based PT and an
EAP-based PT, there is no consensus on adopting any of the proposals as
-00 WG I-Ds. 

A number of issues were discussed at both meetings and action items
identified. The issues include:
1) the Asokan attack and counter-measure
2) the extent to which the various proposals meet the NEA requirements
3) determining the impact on supplicants, and 
4) process for standardizing an EAP-based PT given the dependency on a
standard EAP tunnel method. 

The last two issues have been addressed. The major remaining issue is to
get consensus on whether the Asokan attack needs to be protected
against, and how it should be done. This topic will be explored further
on the mailing list.

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:30:33 +0200

Hello,

> standard EAP tunnel method.

Does using EAP for something other than "authentication" fit this protocol's
applicability?
Long time ago we had ICOS BoF, and this issue was *heavily* emphasized. Now
I see there is no mention of that in IETF. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
against the proposed drafts. But I just want to understand if I'm missing
some important detail, or if IETF has evolved to a point where we are now
more liberal on this issue.

Alper