It would be nice if someone can explain what's wrong with the conclusion.
Also if it is a layer-2 authentication problem, I do not know whether it
fits in IETF. On the other hand, DSLF requirements do not not seem to
indicate that it is a layer-2 auth problem.
regards,
-Subir
Richard Pruss wrote:
In the spirit of analyzing the DSLF's Subscriber Authentication
Requirements
as presented through a liaison letter on May 25, 2007, we discussed the
following material during IETF 70 PANA WG meeting.
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/pana-3.ppt
We have reached consensus among the PANA WG members present in the
room. In
order to make this an official WG consensus, we are running this by
the WG
via mailing list.
If you have any feedback, please send an e-mail on the mailing list by
December 11, 2007 Tuesday 6pm PT.
If there is no objection, IETF PANA WG will send a liaison letter to
DSLF
based on this consensus.
- IETF PANA WG Chairs
I strongly disagree. PANA is not suitable to DSLForum requirements.
Other protocols in the IETF and IEEE are far better candidates.
Taking this work in the PANA WG is a totally wrong conclusion that
somehow PANA is the correct framework for solving a layer 2
authentication problem!
Put you hammer back in the drawer, not every problem is a nail you
need to hit with it.
- Ric
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
