Hi all, I second lionel. PANA fulfills DSL Forum requirements and should be considered as a serious candidate.
Regards, Julien Bournelle On Dec 7, 2007 7:54 PM, MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
