Re: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ralph Droms escribió:

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"...


 Which one? and why it is better?

Antonio

- 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



--
------------------------------------------------------------
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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]