Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agendafordhc WG meeting

["Alan Kavanagh" <alan.kavanagh at ericsson.com>]

Redback and Ericsson can speak for themselves on this matter.

Alan  

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Eric Voit (evoit)
Sent: March 17, 2009 10:37 AM
To: Alper Yegin; David W. Hankins
Cc: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agendafordhc WG
meeting

The DSLF is waiting for a response from IETF on DHCP Auth.  This is a
fact.

PPPoE is the closest analogy for a historical model.  The IETF rejected
it, and Broadband folks implemented it anyway because it was the right
thing to do at the time.  (In retrospect, nobody can sanely argue that
PPPoE has been "harmful to the internet".)

Many individuals who build BNGs (e.g., from Juniper, Redback, Huawei,
Nortel, Cisco) have stated reasons why they think DHCP Auth is an
appropriate way to go.  The discussions are well documented on the
int-serv list, and I will not waste anyone's time by revisiting them
again.

The will be running code and deployments on DHCP Auth shortly.  Fighting
the effort, even as an *informational* draft is just silly.  Everyone
knows the arguments.  People here are adults.  They can choose to
build/deploy or not.  

And then the market will choose.

Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf

> Of Alper Yegin
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:47 AM
> To: 'David W. Hankins'; 'DHC WG'
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agenda fordhc

> WG meeting
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg