Dave - one quick follow on to your observation about "will not work" that falls somewhere between "will not work" and "don't like it". There is another possibility: "works, but there's a much simpler way to meet the same requirements"... - Ralph On 5/26/06 11:34 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> EAP over IP (or UDP, or link) is about authenticating the user. If a >> media independent technique better than just using a browser is needed, >> then solve that problem. Personally, I would find the work far more >> persuasive if it did not also try to solve the problem of creating an >> IPSec association to the access device, nor of the authorization >> selection problem. >> >> And spell out in clear English what use case needs that problem solved. >> I can read between the lines and start to guess. But the document is >> quite unclear. The appendix about DSL is not helpful in that regard. > > > Although not a guaranteed way to distinguish among criticisms, it can be > helpful > to categorize them as either "It will not work" versus "I don't like it". The > former indicates a basic technical flaw, and the latter a matter of > preference. > > If it is common for readers of a specification to fail to understand what it > is > for then it has, perhaps, the most basic kind of technical flaw. How can a > specification succeed if there is confusion about its implementation or use? > > By contrast observations such as "there are better solutions" moves into the > fuzzier and more subjective realm of trying to predict market preferences. The > IETF is not very good at making these predictions. Absent any indication of > actual harm that would ensue from publishing a specification, fear that no one > will adopt it or that there will be multiple solutions seems an inappropriate > basis for denying publication. (On the other hand, strong indication of > community interest in deplying a specification is supposed to be a factor in > deciding whether to charter the work in the first place; however as Sam noted, > we are rather late in the process.) > > In any event, I would claim that concerns over who will use PANA fall into the > "I don't like it" category, since it basically seeks to make statements about > market preferences, which is a small step from personal preferences. > > Having looked over this thread and the -framework document a bit, I find > myself > unclear which of the two lines of concern is being pursued, although I > impressed > by the degree of confusion about PANA after what appears to be considerable > effort to understand it. This does not bode well for community understanding, > and that of course does not bode well for adoption and use. > > I would find it particularly helpful to have a concise statement from someone > who says that PANA will not work. Cannot be implemented (properly) by virtue > of > technical errors or documentation too confusing to understand. Or cannot be > deployed and used, by virtue of administrative complexity or, again, > documentation too confusing to understand. > > Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to note that the emperor is > pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style? > > d/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf