I have no doubt that an implementation can be made to work, when one has control of all the layers. The question is whether PANA bootstrap will work when all that is supplied is a PANA layer that must operate above an existing, presumably standards compliant, 802.1X/802.11i implementation. When one can bypass a restriction of 802.11i (which says to drop non-802.1X frames on the uncontrolled port), then PANA bootstrap is possible. However, what authority has PANA to change a standard developed in an entirely different standards organization? -Bob -----Original Message----- From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:19 AM To: 'Yoshihiro Ohba'; 'Sam Hartman' Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-pana-framework-06 We (Samsung) have an implementation as well. Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:02 AM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pana-framework-06 > > If implementability of the specification is an issue, my company has > an implementation of bootstrapping 802.11i PSK mode based on running > PANA over Uncontrolled Port. The implementation works without > modifying a WiFi hardware or its firmware. We have a plan to publish > the source code of the implementation in Open Diameter project. > > Regards, > Yoshihiro Ohba > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:45:25AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > e email discussion over > > Yoshihiro> the EAP mailing list quoted below, I had a short > > Yoshihiro> conversation on this issue with Jesse Walker during > > Yoshihiro> IEEE 802 interim meeting in January in order to > > Yoshihiro> follow-up the email discussion and understand the input > > Yoshihiro> from Jesse more. As far as I understand, he seemed to > > Yoshihiro> agree on this possible interpretation while he > > Yoshihiro> mentioned that there is no existing 802.11i > > Yoshihiro> implementation that uses 802.1X Uncontrolled Port for > > Yoshihiro> non-802.1X frame exchange, but I may be still > > Yoshihiro> misunderstanding something. Also, for the sake of > > Yoshihiro> completeness of the email discussion over the EAP > > Yoshihiro> mailing list, the following email that I sent in > > Yoshihiro> response to msg03872 should be quoted as well: > > Yoshihiro> http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/msg03879.html.] > > > > > > So, the implementability of our specifications is a significant > > concern. If we do not expect there to be environments in which a > > feature of our spec will be implementable, then we should remove that > > feature. > > > > Implementability is sufficiently important that RFC 2026 explicitly > > gives the IESG the ability to request an implementation report even > > for publication at proposed standard when it has questions about > > whether a particular feature can be implemented interoperably. > > > > --Sam > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf