Hi, On 10/19/07, Eric Voit (evoit) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yoshihiro, > Jari, > > I don't have a problem with PANA. It looks like a fine protocol. > > Yet the DSL Forum didn't ask for PANA, they asked for DHCP Auth. Twice. > I believe there are sound operational reasons for why they have done so. > And I have done my best to reflect some of those during this debate. > > Since it has been two weeks, I have reattached at the bottom Jari's > original request which started this thread. His original question > remains: do we recharter DHC to do what is being requested? > > If the IETF's answer is "no", I would suspect the DSLF will refocus > itself on extending the nascent 802.1af work instead. Remember, the > first DSLF liaison statement was also addressed to the IEEE. > > IMHO, the IETF needs to soon decide whether it wants to continue the > protocol leadership it has enjoyed with Broadband and its hundreds of > millions of PPPoE & DHCP Opt82 subscribers, or pass the baton to the > IEEE.
I don't think that this is what IETF need to decide...we need to decide if DHCP-based authentication is the right thing to do. Julien > > Eric > > > > From: Yoshihiro Ohba, October 18, 2007 9:39 PM > > > > I was mentinoning in terms of the number of combinations of > > IP address allocation state (no address/non-service > > address/service address) and authentication state > > (unauthenticated/authenticated) that may be used for > > debugging/troubleshooting. But even in terms of state > > transtions, I don't see much difference. EAP state > > transitions make no diffirence. Option 82 makes no > > difference if option 82 is also inserted in PANA message. > > DHCP state transisions (excluding those for EAP state > > transitions) before completion of authentication makes no > > diffirence. The only difference would be DHCP state > > transitions after successful authentication in PANA, but I > > don't really think this is a big deal that can justify > > significant change to DHCP. > > > > Yoshihiro Ohba > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 4:22 PM > To: Internet Area > Subject: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL? > > > We talked about the DSL requirements earlier on this list. Now they have > sent us a liaison statement regarding what they would like to do: > > "At this time, we would like to make the IETF aware that during our most > recent DSL Forum quarterly meeting, the Architecture and Transport > Working Group agreed to seriously consider adopting a mechanism such as > that proposed in draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-01.txt or > draft-zhao-dhc-user-authentication-02. We understand that the authors of > these specifications intend to produce a combined document soon. > The DSL Forum formally requests that the IETF adopt this as a work item, > and would appreciate being advised of progress as soon as possible. > > Our next quarterly meeting is December 10-13, in Lisbon, Portugal." > > > How do we feel about this? Is this a good idea, considering the DSL > architecture? How will it affect DHCP the protocol? How would you go > about making DHCP extensions so that they work best for all possible > environments and not just DSL? Is anyone already working on the combined > draft promised above? Are there any other choices that we should > recommend instead? > > I would like to hold the discussion on this in this list until we've > determined that the DHCP protocol is the right tool for the job. If it > is, we can recharter DHC WG again to add the actual development work > there. (DHC is right now being rechartered but that recharting is mostly > a cleanup and not the addition of functionality to do this.) > > Jari > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
