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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin at yegin.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:47 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.

While not intending to make a statement regarding the
current document, I cringe whenever I see a casual use
of "* considered harmful". Such proclamations can have
a profound influence on the way things move forward or
don't - and not always for the best.

Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com

> 
> 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