> > > The fact that the DSLF chose to express "serious interest" > > in a based > > > DHCP solution says the rest. > > > > Saying that would be rushing the DSLF to a particular decision. > > > > Note that, there is no PANA representation in DSLF. What's > > been done so far does not go beyond few informational > > presentations by the visitors (once I gave one). On the other > > hand, the owner of DHCP solution has a very strong presence > > in the DSLF. > > This is of course a bogus statement. The following list > http://www.dslforum.org/about/members.php shows the current DSLF member > list, which also includes employers of what one may assume to be the > "PANA delegation". Now when being a DSLF member whether one chooses to > participate in DSLF meetings and proceedings is another matter, which I > gather the PANA delegation chose not to. That's a poor excuse though.
Since people here in IETF are surprised how IETF's own solution has not received adequate attention and how a hacky solution like EAP/DHCP made it to the liaison letter, I'm giving the background. > > So it is no surprise that one solution went neglected when > > the other one received the whole positive attention. > > Misunderstandings about PANA that we found out during these > > latest (online and offline) IETF discussions are a good proof > > of that. And so are the problems we found about the > > DHCP-based solution. > > Well, so the time spent on the 4 contributions above wasn't well spent > since despite these numerous informational presentations folks still > "misunderstand PANA". Or is it that perhaps they don't see such a clear > justification for it? None of the above. I can add few other "perhaps" but no need to stray from a technical discussion here. > BTW, if the discussion in the IETF community itself shows a > misunderstanding of PANA, then one should really be concerned if it ever > will be understood. At least the DHCP-based solution doesn't seem to be > failing on that front, perhaps because it's not trying to be all things > to all people. I was referring to the misunderstanding of the DSLF people, not IETF (e.g., how use of PANA means DHCP Option 82 needs to be deprecated, how PANA fails IPAuth-14, how PANA is at an disadvantage compared to EAP/DHCP when implementation optimizations are considered, etc.... none of which turned out to be true). > > > > > I don't know how DSLF progressed from "requirements stage" > > (previous contact with IETF) to "serious interest in one > > solution stage". > > Speaking as a participant in the DSLF I can say that all of the > candidate mechanism have been presented previously (and in some cases > repeatedly so too) but no progress has been made in adopting one nor in > obtaining liaison replies from other SDOs to their previous requests. > Hence the DSLF chose to express it's "serious interest" more clearly. Can you point to some meeting minutes or other material where EAP/DHCP was evaluated against the other solutions and got into the liaison letter? That background would help IETF to understand if EAP/DHCP is justified, at all... Alper _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
