|
Authentication is something that happens at every layer with every
application. Terminal access was designed without authentication, that
does not mean we do it like that today. I do not think we can take the argument of it was not designed for x as a reason to stay in the past. Regards, Ric Basavaraj Patil wrote, around 29/10/07 9:42 AM: Ralph, I think overloading DHCP for access authentication is a bad idea. DHCP was not designed for that purpose. I guess I need to communicate this on the int-area list. But anyway you know my opinion at least in the DHC WG. -Basavaraj On 10/19/07 6:05 AM, "ext Ralph Droms" <rdroms at cisco.com> wrote:There is a lengthy discussion about rechartering the dhc WG to take on the DHCP authentication proposals in draft-pruss-dhcp-auth- dsl-01.txt and draft-zhao-dhc-user-authentication-02 in the int- area at ietf.org mailing list. Both of these drafts have been submitted for to the WG for review in the past, and neither, to date, has been accepted as a dhc WG work iterm. I've included a copy of the initial posting, http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/ msg00957.html, below. Because this discussion may lead to the rechartering of the dhc WG to take on either or both of these drafts as new work items, those of you not on the int-area mailing list should consider reviewing the e-mail thread and contributing to the discussion. - Ralph ===== To: Internet Area <int-area at ietf.org> Subject: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL? From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:22:15 +0300 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 _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg |
_______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg