Subject: Re: [Nea] WGLC for comments on draft-ietf-nea-requirements-07.txt

From: han yin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07:24 +0800

New revisions about PT protocol clarify which aspects should be considered when selecting
PT protocol. The modification is elaborated and nesscessary since PT protocols may be standardized in other WGs. 

Agree with that.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:41 AM
Subject: [Nea] WGLC for comments on draft-ietf-nea-requirements-07.txt

>A revised version of the NEA requirements draft has been posted (-07),
> addressing comments received during the IESG review. Please see Paul
> Sangster's message below regarding the few specific updates made.
> 
> The draft specification is at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nea-requirements-07.txt
> 
> We are now issuing a WG Last Call for comments on the updated document.
> Please review the changes and send any comments to the NEA mailing list.
> 
> This WG Last Call will end on May 14, two weeks from today.
> 
> Thanks
> Steve and Susan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Sangster
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 7:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Nea] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nea-requirements-07.txt
> 
> 
> As everyone noticed from the mail below, we have submitted an update to
> the overview and requirements specification.  The additions were to
> address comments raised by the IESG review.
> 
> This revision includes 3 notable changes.  Two of the changes involve
> the use of the NEA protocols in constrained environments, specifically:
> a new common requirement (C-11) and a discussion of the issue in section
> 5.2.3 (paragraphs 2 and 3) with regard to the PT protocol.  The third
> change was to add to the description of potential man in the middle
> threats at the end of section 8.3.1.
> 
> Because we added significant text and in particular a new requirement,
> we believe the new portions of the document require another WG review
> prior to returning to the IESG review.  Please review the changes and
> send any significant issues.
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea