Subject: [Nea] Remote Posture Validators

From: "Mani, Mahalingam \(Mani\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:00:02 -0700

On the topic of whether Posture Validators need to be collocated to the
Posture Broker Server (PBS) in the NEA Server

In the -00 and -01 drafts (5.1.2) it is stated that the Posture
Validator (PV) to be located on another server than the PBS

requiring the PBS to deal with local and remote PVs.

In writing this section we had discussed at length the pros and cons of
supporting remote PVs on whether this should be a requirement going
forward.

While remote PVs provide the flexibility of running on independent
platforms (or on related servers if any), they carry the additional
burden of establishing a trust relationship with the PBS(s) and also the
question of standardizing PBS<->PV transport; among other
considerations.

We would like to get the WG's thoughts on this.

Regards,

-mani

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

---

From: "Paul Sangster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:32:17 -0800

Just to be clear on the question, because we are not chartered to define
requirements (nor select) a remote PV protocol, would the WG prefer:
 
1) We not mention remote validators in the spec
2) We acknowledge their existance largely for discussing their impact on
the architecture, considerations (security, privacy and other) similar
to our current coverage
3) Increase the discussion of remote validators in some way (explain
how)
 
Paul

________________________________

	From: Mani, Mahalingam (Mani) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:00 AM
	To: nea
	Subject: [Nea] Remote Posture Validators

	On the topic of whether Posture Validators need to be collocated
to the Posture Broker Server (PBS) in the NEA Server

	In writing this section we had discussed at length the pros and
cons of supporting remote PVs on whether this should be a requirement
going forward.

	While remote PVs provide the flexibility of running on
independent platforms (or on related servers if any), they carry the
additional burden of establishing a trust relationship with the PBS(s)
and also the question of standardizing PBS<->PV transport; among other
considerations.

	Regards,

	-mani

---

From: "Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:57:50 -0000

My vote would be for a slightly different flavor of option #2.  Given that a
remote PV protocol is not within current WG scope, I say that describing the
existence of remote PVs should only be as it relates to requirements for PA
or PB.   Otherwise, I don't see a strong argument as to why it needs to be
mentioned, since whether you include it or not, the reference model doesn't
change.  

MS

From: Paul Sangster [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 5:32 PM
To: nea
Subject: RE: [Nea] Remote Posture Validators

2) We acknowledge their existance largely for discussing their impact on the
architecture, considerations (security, privacy and other) similar to our
current coverage

3) Increase the discussion of remote validators in some way (explain how)

Paul

  _____  

In the -00 and -01 drafts (5.1.2) it is stated that the Posture Validator
(PV) to be located on another server than the PBS

In writing this section we had discussed at length the pros and cons of
supporting remote PVs on whether this should be a requirement going forward.

While remote PVs provide the flexibility of running on independent platforms
(or on related servers if any), they carry the additional burden of
establishing a trust relationship with the PBS(s) and also the question of
standardizing PBS<->PV transport; among other considerations.

Regards,

-mani