Subject: [Int-area] DSLF and PANA WG

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:00:41 +0200

Hi Jari,

DSLF's May 25 liaison that stated:

"We are not currently aware of a solution specified in the industry that
meets our requirements. Can you advise us if you have a specified solution
or whether a suitable solution is under your consideration."

I think what we can do in our response is to notify DSLF that IETF PANA WG
was chartered for this problem space and the PANA protocol specification is
approved by IETF for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Can we please include that in our response to DSLF along with whatever else
would be said about the past int-area discussions?

As for the detailed requirement analysis, this is something we already
started doing in PANA WG. In order not to delay your liaison letter, you
could mention that requirements analysis is in progress. That analysis
should not hold us from sharing the aforementioned facts.

Regards,

Alper

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Richard Pruss <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:28:46 -0800

Hi Jari,

While I certainly do not disagree that the IETF is welcome to undertake 
requirements analysis of set protocols, solution tools and techniques 
that could apply to the DSLForum requirements, I cannot think of a place 
less suited to doing this with the cost of per use broadband and 
interest of the Internet in mind than the PANA WG.

- Ric

---

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:29:32 -0500

Jari,

AFAIK, no DHCP+PANA call flow which has been matched the DSLF
requirements has been articulated or discussed.  Discussion of such an
integrated call flow should be the minimal threshold for such a
response.

Also, since the DSLF is well aware of PANA: 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg01127.html
a response without such an analysis would at best convey no new
information.  More realistically, such a response would make it seem
like the IETF just isn't listening.

Eric

> From: Alper Yegin, December 05, 2007 9:01 PM
> 
> Hi Jari,
> 
> "We are not currently aware of a solution specified in the 
> industry that meets our requirements. Can you advise us if 
> you have a specified solution or whether a suitable solution 
> is under your consideration."
> 
> I think what we can do in our response is to notify DSLF that 
> IETF PANA WG was chartered for this problem space and the 
> PANA protocol specification is approved by IETF for 
> publication as a Proposed Standard.
> 
> Can we please include that in our response to DSLF along with 
> whatever else would be said about the past int-area discussions?
> 
> As for the detailed requirement analysis, this is something 
> we already started doing in PANA WG. In order not to delay 
> your liaison letter, you could mention that requirements 
> analysis is in progress. That analysis should not hold us 
> from sharing the aforementioned facts.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alper
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:42:30 -0800

>More realistically, such a response would make it seem like the IETF just 
>isn't listening

Question:  How should the IETF be dealing with these kind of liaison 
requests going forward?

At present the IETF has no liaison to DSLF, and no liaison manager.  It did 
not respond to the
initial DSLF liaison.   While it is certainly a good thing to be discussing 
a response to the
latest liaison,  if our intent is to be perceived as "listening" then some 
pre-requisites
may need to be put in place.

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:55:13 +0200

DSLF has prepared a set of simple straight forward requirements that any
protocol proposal can be assessed against. So I don't see the reason why
PANA WG, where PANA expertise is, cannot assess its own protocol for this
simple set of requirements -- except for the very political agenda you two
are carrying.

Well, DHCP WG where DHCP expertise is can do the same on your I-D if IETF
agrees that DHCP is the right solution.

There is only one requirement that cannot be authoritatively answered by the
IETF PANA WG, that is "Must fit into TR-101 operational model", and we are
not answering that. 

And we will be inviting DSLF to contact PANA WG for further questions and
clarifications about PANA (so that they don't get exposed to more
misinformation fed by the wrong people -- if you know what I mean ;)

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pruss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:29 AM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: 'Jari Arkko'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] DSLF and PANA WG
> 
> Hi Jari,
>

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:11:41 -0800

> misinformation fed by the wrong people -- if you know what I mean ;)
Alper, this reads to me like you are operating under the misguided 
assumption that WGs have membership, even that you get to decide who is 
part of your WG and who is not. This is very dangerous territory.

- Mark
>>> meets our requirements. Can you advise us if you have a specified
>>>       
>> solution
>>     
>>> I think what we can do in our response is to notify DSLF that IETF PANA
>>>       
>> WG
>>     
>>> was chartered for this problem space and the PANA protocol specification
>>>       
>> is
>>     
>>> Can we please include that in our response to DSLF along with whatever
>>>       
>> else
>>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:52:33 -0800

> part of your WG and who is not. This is very dangerous territory.

Look, guys, no offense, but the point of having this discussion here  
is for us to come to understand how you both have arrived at your  
positions, so that we can figure out what we want to do as a group.    
When you start talking about dangerous territory, and when Alper  
starts talking about politics, it really misses the point.   The  
debate here is not happening for your or Alper's benefit.   It's  
happening so that more working group members can come to understand  
your positions.   Anything you say that doesn't further that goal is  
simply delaying that process.

For my part, I was undecided about this at the meeting, and I'm still  
pretty much undecided.   And based on how the voting went in the  
meeting, I think this is an accurate description of where a lot of  
interested participants are.   I've been trying to give you guys the  
respect of spending some time trying to understand your positions.   I  
know it's frustrating to keep getting clueless questions about a  
thought process that you've already followed to its end.   We're not  
doing this out of disrespect - we're trying to get a clue.   It would  
really help me, and probably others here, if you and Richard and Alper  
could answer the questions us cluebies are asking and not waste time  
trying to convince each other.   I don't see that happening without  
outside intervention, which is what we are here for.

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:40:57 -0800

> outside intervention, which is what we are here for.
You are absolutely right, Ted.

It's my fault as much as anyone else's that we are even having this 
discussion in the IETF. I've been a big proponent of trying to bring the 
DSL community back into the IETF when it needs to develop protocol 
extensions, and this is part of that effort. My crystal ball is telling 
me that we are already well on our way to extending DHCP for subscriber 
authentication in the industry at large, and I would much rather see 
further development on this done under guidance from the IETF. Thank you 
for your participation in that.

- Mark

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:36:47 -0800

All,

> misinformation fed by the wrong people
>   

Lets keep the discussion at a civil level. Thank you.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:38:05 -0800

FYI. I plan to send a preliminary response from the ADs to the DSL Forum
at the end of this week. This response will indicate that we have
discussed the topic of DHCP authentication and the state of the
discussion (issues raised, ongoing debate, feeling from the meeting,
discussion will continue on the list, etc.).

Alper has asked for an opportunity for the PANA WG to send a their
evaluation of PANA's suitability for DSL Forum's requirements. Such an
evaluation can be sent along as well, but in that case the status of
that evaluation i.e. ongoing debate will also be indicated.

Additional responses will be sent when we make final conclusions on the
mailing list.

Hope this clarifies,

Jari

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:00:04 +0200

Jari,

> that evaluation i.e. ongoing debate will also be indicated.

We are running the evaluation through IETF PANA WG mailing list so that we
can make it an official WG consensus. And that won't happen until the end of
next Tuesday.

Afterwards, we are planning to convey that as IETF PANA WG's assessment to
DSLF.

Meanwhile, could you please include some text in your liaison letter towards
conveying:
- IETF PANA WG was chartered for the problem space including DSLF's
subscriber authentication issue
- PANA protocol specification is approved by IETF for publication as a
Proposed Standard
- IETF PANA WG will be providing its assessment of PANA with respect to DSLF
requirements separately.

Thanks.

Alper

---

From: Richard Pruss <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:57:21 -0800

It seems totally inappropriate that the PANA WG send their own 
evaluation to the DSL Forum.

If the small changes to DHCP we are suggesting to allow incremental 
migration from PPPoE are not acceptable,
a different layer 2 solution like IEEE suggested like 802.1af, possibly 
coupled with 802.1aj is far preferable than
this address swapping or link local for IPv4 business of PANA.

Even if Layer 3 authentication is takes day, which I find unlikely given 
the size of these Layer 2 networks,
I can see many preferable options to PANA:
- HTTPS
- HIP
- SIP

Ralph with the agreement of the AD's moved this discussion to the 
int-area, lets have the discussion here not in some little corner.

- Ric