DSLF has prepared a set of simple straight forward requirements that any protocol proposal can be assessed against. So I don't see the reason why PANA WG, where PANA expertise is, cannot assess its own protocol for this simple set of requirements -- except for the very political agenda you two are carrying.
Well, DHCP WG where DHCP expertise is can do the same on your I-D if IETF agrees that DHCP is the right solution. There is only one requirement that cannot be authoritatively answered by the IETF PANA WG, that is "Must fit into TR-101 operational model", and we are not answering that. And we will be inviting DSLF to contact PANA WG for further questions and clarifications about PANA (so that they don't get exposed to more misinformation fed by the wrong people -- if you know what I mean ;) Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Pruss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:29 AM > To: Alper Yegin > Cc: 'Jari Arkko'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] DSLF and PANA WG > > Hi Jari, > > While I certainly do not disagree that the IETF is welcome to undertake > requirements analysis of set protocols, solution tools and techniques > that could apply to the DSLForum requirements, I cannot think of a place > less suited to doing this with the cost of per use broadband and > interest of the Internet in mind than the PANA WG. > > - Ric > > > Alper Yegin wrote, around 5/12/07 6:00 PM: > > Hi Jari, > > > > DSLF's May 25 liaison that stated: > > > > "We are not currently aware of a solution specified in the industry that > > meets our requirements. Can you advise us if you have a specified > solution > > or whether a suitable solution is under your consideration." > > > > I think what we can do in our response is to notify DSLF that IETF PANA > WG > > was chartered for this problem space and the PANA protocol specification > is > > approved by IETF for publication as a Proposed Standard. > > > > Can we please include that in our response to DSLF along with whatever > else > > would be said about the past int-area discussions? > > > > As for the detailed requirement analysis, this is something we already > > started doing in PANA WG. In order not to delay your liaison letter, you > > could mention that requirements analysis is in progress. That analysis > > should not hold us from sharing the aforementioned facts. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Alper > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
