From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 4:28 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 25, Issue 34
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf@ietf.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: cApitalization (Ross Finlayson)
2. RE: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?
(Alper Yegin)
3. Tracking IPR (Re: RFC Author Count and IPR) (Harald Alvestrand)
4. Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR (Harald Alvestrand)
5. Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR (Harald Alvestrand)
6. Re: I-D ACTION:draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt (Harald Alvestrand)
7. Call for Entries, Deadline 15th June 2006 (Raju Sutar)
--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:26:11 -0700
From: Ross Finlayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cApitalization
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Trust me, you're better off not having done this or any other name chicanery.
>My full name is Edwin Earl Freed (after my uncle), and the hiccups caused by
>people not knowing Ned is a nickname for Edwin long ago ceased to be
>in any way
>amusing.
I thought the nickname for Edwin was "Buzz" :-)
Ross (who had always thought that Ned was a(nother) nickname
for Edward)
--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:52:54 -0700
From: "Alper Yegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?
To: "'Sam Hartman'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Sam,
I wish you had approached the PANA WG first to get clarification on your
concerns and questions. And I wish the responsible AD had said "go to PANA
WG" rather than "don't go there" when you consulted him.
Even after the PANA WG was chartered, we went through your suggested
exercise twice with our AD (Thomas Narten), and got the problem statement
approved in RFC 4058. No conditions have changed since than, so I am not
sure why we need to go through this exercise again at this stage (the
protocol documents passed AD review and getting readied for IESG review).
I am sure if you ask a broad question like who is confused about a given
protocol, you'd always have many positive answers -- for various reasons.
Not sure if this is helpful. Having basic knowledge about network access
authentication and EAP is a prerequisite for anyone to understand what PANA
really does.
And for the question of where it would be used... One answer is already in
the IETF NEA BoF. It calls for EAPoverL3 transport. And the other answer is
in the DSL networks. If you have access to DSL Forum documents, I recommend
you look at dsl2006.174.02. The document lists requirements for network
access authentication protocol. PANA is a documented candidate and in fact
it is the only one that satisfies all of the requirements.
I hope these answer your concerns.
Alper
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:12 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?
>
>
>
> Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an explicit call for
> members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA working group
> to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if you have done
> such a review or attempted such a review and been unsuccessful. Let
> us know what you think PANA is intended to be useful for and whether
> you think it is actually useful.
>
> My strong hunch is that we've chartered work for some reason, and now
> that the working group is nearing the end of its charter, we still
> don't understand why we want this thing we've built and whether it's a
> good idea. People aren't screaming not so much because they are happy
> with results but because no one actually understands PANA.
>
> I understand that there's a strong presumption that once chartered,
> work is useful. I'd like to challenge this presumption enough to get
> people to actually read the document. If people not involved in the
> effort sit down, read the document and understand what it's all about,
> my concern is satisfied. But if enough people try to read the
> document, try to understand and fail, we're not done yet. We
> certainly cannot have consensus to publish something we've tried and
> failed to understand.
>
> It's not just me. I've
