Well, certainly other EU project are interested as I am involve in some
of them like Daidalos http://www.ist-daidalos.org and previously also
SEINIT http://www.seinit.org/
But also I will like to mention and Josh is aware (DAME project) that
some work is being considered in the european academic networks
regarding to the interaction between authentication and authorization
that comes from a design that was based on the use of PANA in the
network access :-)
Antonio
On 24 May 2006, at 20:52, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
I don't know if PANA will be useful, but I do know why some folks
are interested...
Have you taken a look at the I2 NetAuth work:
http://security.internet2.edu/netauth/
These academic networks are interested in both PANA and NEA as part
of their ubiquitous sign-on to R&E networks agenda.
While I can't comment on NetAuth, I've been engaged in the Europe's
equivalent project for HEFE, Eduroam, for the last couple of years and
to my knowledge we've never discussed PANA (even though at least a few
of us have been aware of its gestation).
FWIW I've personally never understood what niche(s) PANA was expecting
to fill, but I assumed it was me being dim.
josh.
Josh Howlett, Networking Specialist, University of Bristol.
email: josh.howlett at bristol.ac.uk | phone: +44 (0)7867 907076 |
interal: 7850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asunto:
The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?
De:
"Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Fecha:
Wed, 24 May 2006 08:12:04 -0700
Para:
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Para:
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
CC:
<pana-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an explicit call for
members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA working group
to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if you have done
such a review or attempted such a review and been unsuccessful. Let
us know what you think PANA is intended to be useful for and whether
you think it is actually useful.
My strong hunch is that we've chartered work for some reason, and now
that the working group is nearing the end of its charter, we still
don't understand why we want this thing we've built and whether it's a
good idea. People aren't screaming not so much because they are happy
with results but because no one actually understands PANA.
I understand that there's a strong presumption that once chartered,
work is useful. I'd like to challenge this presumption enough to get
people to actually read the document. If people not involved in the
effort sit down, read the document and understand what it's all about,
my concern is satisfied. But if enough people try to read the
document, try to understand and fail, we're not done yet. We
certainly cannot have consensus to publish something we've tried and
failed to understand.
It's not just me. I've been trying to find people outside of PANA who
claim to understand the effort and what it's good for and why
link-layer solutions are not better. When the first discussion of
PANA hit the IESG, I asked other IESG members why PANA was a good idea
and what problem it solved. "Don't go there," was the advice I got
from the responsible AD.
At that time (a year and a half ago) there was no one on the IESG who
claimed to understand PANA or to think it was a good idea.
I'm fairly sure that with the possible exception of Jari (who is a
technical advisor to PANA), that's still true.
The security community has been trying to understand PANA. I've sent
multiple security reviewers at the PANA document.s They always come
back fundamentally confused about what PANA is trying to do or about
whether it is a good idea. They end up focusing on some detail or
another and asking for some minor part of the system to be fixed. But
I don't get the impression from the reviews they understand the
overall picture; explicit discussion of this also indicates that they
are not confident in their understanding nor do they know whether it
is a good idea.
We keep running back over the same ground, still confused and still
trying to muddle through to no real effect.
I've tried to understand it myself. I tried to understand in the BOF.
It was very clear to me leaving the original PANA BOF that something
was very confused. Every year or so since I've tried to go back and
figure out what I missed. Eventually though I've started wondering
whether the problem wasn't me, but was an actual lack of clarity.
So, folks can you please help us all out. Especially if the internet
area is not your primary focus, especially if you've never heard of
PANA before, take a look at the framework document and all their other
documents. Do you get it? Is it a good idea?
Thanks for your time.
P.S. Again, this is me speaking as an individual. At this late
stage, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to take actions as an
AD claiming that we didn't understand a problem without a strong
community consensus.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio F. Gómez Skarmeta
Dept. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
Facultad de Informática
Universidad de Murcia
Apartado 4021
30001 Murcia
Telf: +34-968-364607
fax: +34-968-364151
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf