Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agenda for dhc WG meeting

["Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin at yegin.org>]

David,

This I-D is not adopted by DSLF.
It is just one of the candidate solutions.
DSLF is expecting IETF's evaluation.
If IETF does not give the green light, this ("damaging") I-D does not get
adopted by the DSLF.

If IETF is going to produce any official document on this, it should be
titled "EAP over DHCP considered harmful" IMHO.

Alper




> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of David W. Hankins
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:42 AM
> To: DHC WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agenda for dhc
> WG meeting
> 
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47:23AM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> > I don't know if this is considered bad form at the IETF, but I think
> > we need to seriously (re)consider this compromise; a show of good
> > faith on DSL Forum's behalf to document their (ab)uses.
> 
> I may not have been clear;
> 
> We have had other protocols at the IETF that were turned down for
> publication through consensus of the relevant practicioners, who
> believed these protocols would actively damage the Internet.  But they
> were widely deployed anyway.  The absence of documentation of those
> protocols was (looking back, in my opinion) a detriment to our
> community (and, as an aside, a catalyst in the ever-shrinking relevance
> of the IETF).
> 
> One example within DHC WG's lifetime and applicability would be the
> WPAD option.  It is /still/ used today despite never becoming an RFC,
> it /did/ actively damage the Internet's security (so these
> practicioners were vindicated) and so has changed over the years, but
> there is also measurable damage for the absence of any specification;
> people must now seek this documentation in "DHCP Undergrounds."
> 
> I think therefore the question of permitting the publication of this
> draft in this form (and therefore as a DHC WG item) bears re-
> evaluation, even if its technical contents (and capacity to actively
> damage the Internet) remain effectively unchanged since the last time
> it was rejected as a WG item.
> 
> I don't think anything outside of that question (of re-evaluation as a
> WG item) is before us.
> 
> --
> David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
> Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins