> -----Original Message----- > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 October 2007 00:39 > To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Cc: 'Internet Area' > Subject: RE: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL? > > > Speaking as a DSL Forum participant: Both PANA and 802.1x have been > > previously presented at the DSL Forum in the context of TR-101 and > > WT-146 work. PANA in particular was presented by one of the > framework > > draft co-authors. > > I still didn't get a pointer to which presentation you are > referring to.
Sorry. I've set-up a dedicated filter for this mother-of-all-threads, so it must have hijacked your mail somewhere... > Nevertheless, see below... Well, here's the list, along with the dates they were submitted on and authors: dsl2006.607.00 Evaluation of IP Subscriber Authentication Mechanisms 09/12/2006 Alessandro Capurso, Alper Yegin, John Kaippallimalil, Lionel Morand, Subir Das dsl2006.387.00 IP Subscriber and Session Authentication (for WT-146) 05/02/2006 Prakash Jayaraman, Alper Yegin dsl2005.120.00 AAA Protocols for WT-101 Architecture 03/03/2005 Jayaraman, Prakash dsl2003.409.00 IETF PANA overview 11/04/2003 Bathrick, Gregory > > > The fact that the DSLF chose to express "serious interest" > in a based > > DHCP solution says the rest. > > Saying that would be rushing the DSLF to a particular decision. > > Note that, there is no PANA representation in DSLF. What's > been done so far does not go beyond few informational > presentations by the visitors (once I gave one). On the other > hand, the owner of DHCP solution has a very strong presence > in the DSLF. This is of course a bogus statement. The following list http://www.dslforum.org/about/members.php shows the current DSLF member list, which also includes employers of what one may assume to be the "PANA delegation". Now when being a DSLF member whether one chooses to participate in DSLF meetings and proceedings is another matter, which I gather the PANA delegation chose not to. That's a poor excuse though. > > So it is no surprise that one solution went neglected when > the other one received the whole positive attention. > Misunderstandings about PANA that we found out during these > latest (online and offline) IETF discussions are a good proof > of that. And so are the problems we found about the > DHCP-based solution. Well, so the time spent on the 4 contributions above wasn't well spent since despite these numerous informational presentations folks still "misunderstand PANA". Or is it that perhaps they don't see such a clear justification for it? BTW, if the discussion in the IETF community itself shows a misunderstanding of PANA, then one should really be concerned if it ever will be understood. At least the DHCP-based solution doesn't seem to be failing on that front, perhaps because it's not trying to be all things to all people. > > I don't know how DSLF progressed from "requirements stage" > (previous contact with IETF) to "serious interest in one > solution stage". Speaking as a participant in the DSLF I can say that all of the candidate mechanism have been presented previously (and in some cases repeatedly so too) but no progress has been made in adopting one nor in obtaining liaison replies from other SDOs to their previous requests. Hence the DSLF chose to express it's "serious interest" more clearly. -Woj. > > Alper > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
