RE: [Pana] IESG Review of protocol and framework documents

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

Hello Mark and Dan,

> Dan is asking about SNMP. I understand that we have gone in circles with
> respect to whether SNMP is required to be implemented or not, and it
> looks like the result was confusing to Dan. We either need to revive the
> SNMP document, or kill it off completely in the WG and in these specs.

The WG was originally scoped to work only on the PaC-to-PAA protocol (PANA).
Later the WG was asked by our previous AD to also define at least one
protocol for the PAA-to-EP leg. We ended up embarking on that work to define
a complete picture. 

Irrespective of the EAP peer (e.g., PaC) to authenticator (e.g., PAA)
protocol (e.g., PANA, PKMv2, IEEE 802.1X, HRPD), there is need for an
authenticator to enforcement point protocol when the two are separated.
Today there are numerous protocols used for that (e.g., R6 in WiMAX, CAPWAP
in WiFi, Rp in 3GPP2, and IETF's upcoming ANCP in DSL). Defining an
architecture-neutral protocol is a good task, but I'd say it's better scoped
as a work item for a separate WG.

For that reason, I'm leaning towards putting that work aside for PANA WG. If
and when IETF decides to tackle generic authenticator to enforcement point
protocol, draft-ietf-pana-snmp can be a useful starting point.

Let's see if there is any objection from the WG.

And Dan, would that (removing pana-snmp references from our documents) an
acceptable resolution to your Discuss comment?

Regards,

Alper



_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
Pana at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana