The list of requirements is the only material available from the DSL Forum and we should stay focus on!
Actually I refer to a previous mail that I sent on this topic on the Intarea ML: (snip) "Now, one "could" say that the PANA protocol specification is "quite" stable as a Proposed Standard RFC is available ;) Therefore, the question is quite simple: why do not simply reconsider the use of PANA in DSL environment? The proposed alternative, i.e. DHCP-based authentication, that is for the moment only an individual submission at IETF, will have anyway impacts on the DHCP client, the DHCP server and DSL network node behaviours if the goal is to have EAP in DHCP. And the proposed alternative do not explain why the current possible solution(s) don't fulfil the DSL Forum requirements... And I'm not sure that there is a direct link between the existing use of the DHCP option 82 in DSL network leads seamlessly to DHCP-EAP... At least, a pragmatic approach within IETF would be to see how PANA can fulfill DSL forum security requirements, see if there is some functionality gaps, see if this gap could be fulfilled with within PANA or with possible add-on solutions and if not, see other alternatives should be investigated. Only because IETF has already defined "the Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA), a network-layer transport for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to enable network access authentication between clients and access networks." I support the actual ongoing work in the PANA WG to clarify the fact that PANA, as a candidate protocol, is fulfilling DSL requirements. It is not said that PANA is the ultimate solution for DSL networks. It is just said that the PANA protocol should be considered as serious candidate protocol. And I agree with the current content of the slides. Lionel > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 7 décembre 2007 19:38 > À : [email protected] > Cc : Mark Townsley (townsley); Jari Arkko > Objet : Re: [Pana] RE: DSLF Requirement analysis > > I have a feeling that the two things are mixed in the > discussion : (i) whether a requirement is satisfied, and (ii) > how complex a solution would be to satisfy the requirement. > I suggest we focus on (i). I have a problem with discussing > (ii) here, because it tends to be based on additional > unwritten requirements such as "number of states" and > "troubleshoot" and I cannot agree on arguments based on > unwritten requirements. > > Yoshihiro Ohba > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pana mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
