Subject: Re: [Int-area] [dhcwg] Adopt draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl as a working group item?

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:38:58 -0500

Eric - I think you oversimplify when you claim "the IETF executed a NO- 
OP/time-out".  I explained the history in recent e-mail to the int- 
area working group. The dhc WG and the IETF have not been idle since  
the BBF sent the liaison asking the IETF to take on a work item to  
develop a subscriber authentication mechanism based on DHCP, as  
described in draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-01.txt or draft-zhao-dhc-user- 
authentication-02.

The dhc WG has completed an analysis of draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl,  
and, even though there has been no consensus in the WG or the IETF to  
take on the work, the WG has helped the authors make significant  
improvements to draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl.  I consider this a positive  
and tangible result.

Now, with the analysis and improved specification draft, the int-area  
can reconsider the issue for which it had no consensus and asked for  
more information.

To the dhcwg mailing list as a whole - this conversation would be  
better conducted, I think, in the broader int-area mailing list.   
Please read my e-mail at www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg02097.html 
  and followup just to [email-masked].

- Ralph

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:44 AM 2/23/10, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:

>> From: Alper, February 23, 2010 4:31 AM
>>
>> IETF Int-Area has asked DHC WG if EAPoDHCP is a good idea. Plain and
>> simple question.....
>
> And the IETF executed a NO-OP/time-out.
>
>> So, should we still be scared that BBF would standardize DHCP-based
>> solution on its own (and despite the current feedback)?
>
> Last week on this thread Bill Welsh said: "Juniper has submitted an
> alternative DHCP solution to draft-pruss to BBF for March meeting."
>
> Ric Pruss tried to do the right thing by driving the discussion at the
> IETF.   He should be commended for this.  But this venue has proven  
> far
> too difficult to progress the discussion.  The track record of the  
> last
> 30+ months demonstrates that the best interests of the Broadband
> industry are served by migrating the effort to where a deployable  
> result
> can be achieved.
>
> BTW: Anaheim is too late for the IETF waiting to decide on an action.
> The BBF meets the previous week.
>
> Eric
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alper
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:50:10 -0600

> From: Ralph Droms, February 23, 2010 9:39 AM
> 
> OP/time-out".  

Yes, I did over-simplify.  I do know much good work has occurred in
IETF.  And I certainly do appreciate the efforts of yourself, Ted, John,
Geoffrey & many others.

Nevertheless, I suspect 30 months of discussions within the IETF
constitutes a timeout from the perspective of the BBF liaison.  That was
the intent of my statement.  Certainly there are people on the DHC alias
asking whether the requirements are still the same as when the liaison
was sent.

Eric