Ted Lemon wrote, around 2/11/07 3:16 PM:
Well, but let's be clear here. This is not "a model" that "is
dominant" in the scenario you are proposing. It is the /only/ model
that will work in the scenario these two drafts aim to support.
Right?
No, that would fall very seriously short of the goals set by the
DSLForum. There are many more elements involved in the scenarios and
allot more variations on the them. When you look over the documents I
will quote below watch our for the technology choices for service
separation, and quality as the number of options is the main driver on
the number of real world scenario's you see. This of course also drives
what information contributes or can contribute to authentication and
most importantly what is enforced where.
You are digging in the correct direction by trying to understand the use
cases in more depth. The reason why four vendors in DSL broadband and a
number of SP's in the space are recommending this approach does spring
from an understanding the deployments and trying to reuse as much of the
existing deployments and architecture as possible.
The current recommended DSL Forum architecture is in TR-101:
http://www.dslforum.org/techwork/tr/TR-101.pdf
The current draft of next generation WT-148 is:
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/intarea/dsl2006.887.03.doc
The living list of requirements for authentication for WT-146 is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file457.doc
- Ric
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
