From d3e3e3@gmail.com Thu Sep 8 15:22:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D168F21F8BAD for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.544, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2bmERagd4b-H for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFD121F8BAC for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi29 with SMTP id 29so1260129vxi.31 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R7YhWAgveVsawYaCIQGSqmgCEwqS+EB/zDhjX7GmiWg=; b=FKBLBhCzeAPocarpG+m1K8Kgg5Vr4L1bQmbGeSeW3YDs+7KZSuwlNhE5sxh9b5C3Dh KQhbymVIcUJVXxueHtGeXW+fsctOvfQypYl/uKrWG8ID99HpNKKG/ZGYdrU4guajh0of ZnE65m8Wu+mg0ufR/doOUXHEb00NedJ1MsBGA= Received: by 10.52.174.71 with SMTP id bq7mr1232333vdc.526.1315520684071; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.158.71 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:24:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Eastlake Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:24:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF PPP Extensions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:22:51 -0000 Hi, In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next year. In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be declared historic. My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome suggestions and comments on all this. One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions for or against such a meeting. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com From glenzorn@gmail.com Fri Sep 9 04:31:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962FD21F873A for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7leFrbPYWbZ6 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551421F872A for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1017492gxk.40 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4Sqt0HTUKWjnGkleGOkhE7Bzwew3sxPGRomXQPqnO9M=; b=ERImUxbnjEX/lQlT9VkFf2o073CsjaUl1jgt5LAiLKoiA8oJhukspTlJs101+w3kWO OZrK5V3JWCvpb+gWfOnv3IrlSiXrMBKqfq9PrFcDHdgwQ7NVw0U6uyXUc9o1bloJ2vZA MeCgATFNdI6NBGzoNK+J5B9kOlbsfH5ODguSM= Received: by 10.236.89.70 with SMTP id b46mr11022662yhf.38.1315568020094; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.99] (ppp-124-120-17-121.revip2.asianet.co.th [124.120.17.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c62sm6313135yhj.25.2011.09.09.04.33.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:33:31 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Donald Eastlake References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:31:46 -0000 On 9/9/2011 5:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. Thanks for mentioning it! > > Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. > Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP > proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing > the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation > continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next > year. > > In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the > PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF > security guidelines. Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)? > I believe that there should be an update of PPP > security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then > at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be > declared historic. Do you have a list of said RFCs? > > My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the > above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome > suggestions and comments on all this. > > One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November > IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus > on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually > attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions > for or against such a meeting. I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. From mark@townsley.net Fri Sep 9 04:59:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4F621F8AD6 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.433 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0QxdbB1aFg1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD5B21F8ACA for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so1571579wyg.31 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.82.211 with SMTP id o61mr1793857wee.65.1315569658377; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-8712.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev5sm7284440wbb.11.2011.09.09.05.00.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-107520957 From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:00:53 +0200 Message-Id: <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> To: Donald Eastlake X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:59:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4-107520957 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: >>=20 >> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November >> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus >> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually >> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions >> for or against such a meeting. PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed = significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical = meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. = If you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, = James, and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require = IETF presence.=20 If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext = charter, and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" = WG several times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around = and chat with them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even = be a fun bar outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we = could get Craig and Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia.=20 But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a = brand new WG to deal with scheduling. - Mark >=20 > I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext --Apple-Mail-4-107520957 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

One = question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the = November
IETF meeting? I think = that would be the best way to come to = consensus
on this but = obviously only if enough people would plan to = actually
attend. So, I'd be = interested in who is would attend and any = opinions
for or against such a = meeting.

PPPEXT = hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed = significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical = meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. =  If you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like = Glen, James, and others happen to have moved on to other areas that = require IETF presence. 

If you are dead = set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext charter, and pointed = to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG several times as = AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat with them = in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun bar = outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig = and Karl Fox to dig up some = memorabilia. 

But, please don't make = Marcia deal with what to her will look like a brand new WG to deal with = scheduling.

- Mark


I would attend if I had no irreconcilable = conflicts.
_______________________________________________
Pppext = mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/pppext

= --Apple-Mail-4-107520957-- From d3e3e3@gmail.com Fri Sep 9 11:16:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821FC21F8573 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.528, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3Tbs7qkj-Vf for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBB121F85B8 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so3011686fxe.31 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7I7DqVDyzZ1+8XzJ4UdaXIN3LPBcEp3Ooi9ujuQZEpE=; b=ZFuzH/C9zLqlq1YB5G7BJHdRQXS+s4FzXl3oLW5JEYud0ltTypQV7N5jTr/VFjcnGh /ZAOcxep3K1aBI8WfhvNXf0cwikbLLJlQJ6+i2E/4Eg0KdWA6QcR29eWsMri9Dz/Ur/N MAQREl9F8+DguqpdyYnIWo7r2zMSA7EJE1UBI= Received: by 10.223.101.2 with SMTP id a2mr935823fao.2.1315592322408; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.6.105 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:18:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: Glen Zorn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:16:49 -0000 Hi Glen, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 9/9/2011 5:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. > > Thanks for mentioning it! > >> >> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. >> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP >> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing >> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation >> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next >> year. >> >> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the >> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF >> security guidelines. > > Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you > consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is > how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)? I should think the PPPEXT WG would decided which guidelines, subject to the constrains of getting documents through the IETF process :-) >> I believe that there should be an update of PPP >> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then >> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be >> declared historic. > > Do you have a list of said RFCs? I don't think it is complete but how about the following to start with: "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)", RFC 1968, June 1996. "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. "The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE)", RFC 2420, September 1998. >> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the >> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome >> suggestions and comments on all this. >> >> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November >> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus >> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually >> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions >> for or against such a meeting. > > I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. Unless there is significant support, I won't try to have a physical meeting= . Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com From d3e3e3@gmail.com Fri Sep 9 11:24:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0772B21F86DE for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8rCAFc4yfnT for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3A921F86A4 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so3018353fxe.31 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:26:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=anBYxM3Ie+0UW3hIPZzZ12vlEUvYUwRYlcZgbGxihvg=; b=ZovoR/05VmQQ0rqzhMoZl4q5YBApKDGQz7wqWh1FBUpxcuUcrZX0SKMYTH4L6KrOTP n7pRzbzWLlvgdNoPSpy1MNaS9/6Lli1xAEjn8oMZ8TpAI++8K9yg7Q8ZGdkOOmEI0vpu hG6vlDXPGknTfmzm3p0MbyJhBIwc9N3TF9c70= Received: by 10.223.39.193 with SMTP id h1mr161546fae.135.1315592784416; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:26:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.6.105 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:26:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Townsley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:24:35 -0000 Hi Mark, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: Actually I wrote the following: >> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November >> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus >> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually >> attend. So, I'd be interested in who would attend and any opinions >> for or against such a meeting. > > PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed > significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical > meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. =A0= If > you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, James= , > and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require IETF > presence. I don't have any particular problem operating PPPEXT without meetings, if that is what people want, either under the current charter or an expanded charter to do some security stuff. > If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext charter= , > and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG several > times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat wi= th > them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun bar > outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig an= d > Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia. Well, it caused some difficulties with the TRILL over PPP draft that the current charter prohibits the WG producing any documents, which seems to also rule out the WG updating any security documents. Furthermore, I believe that our AD is inclined to shut down the WG if the current situation doesn't change. > But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a bran= d > new WG to deal with scheduling. Everything has benefits and costs. That it takes some effort to schedule a meeting for a group that has not met in a long time does not seem like the exclusively controlling factor to me. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com > - Mark > > I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > > From mark@townsley.net Fri Sep 9 16:49:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1A821F872A for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YL451Jug+AJ for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245AF21F8593 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwn22 with SMTP id 22so886765wwn.1 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.200.212 with SMTP id ex20mr2587435wbb.89.1315612265270; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-8712.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p19sm8974318wbm.16.2011.09.09.16.51.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-150128780 From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:51:01 +0200 Message-Id: References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> To: Donald Eastlake X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:49:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail-10-150128780 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed = before and during my tenure as AD: = http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=3Dcharter-pppext-2006-07-03.= txt It seems a few sentences were added in 2009, in particular the = unfortunate text that says:=20 "The group is not expected to create new specifications, and if a need = for such work comes up, a recharter is required." This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-) With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily = hamstrung from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think = are of questionable value.=20 - Mark On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi Mark, >=20 > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley = wrote: >>=20 >> On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: >=20 > Actually I wrote the following: >=20 >>> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November >>> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to = consensus >>> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually >>> attend. So, I'd be interested in who would attend and any opinions >>> for or against such a meeting. >>=20 >> PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't = changed >> significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a = physical >> meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. = If >> you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, = James, >> and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require IETF >> presence. >=20 > I don't have any particular problem operating PPPEXT without meetings, > if that is what people want, either under the current charter or an > expanded charter to do some security stuff. >=20 >> If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext = charter, >> and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG = several >> times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and = chat with >> them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun = bar >> outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get = Craig and >> Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia. >=20 > Well, it caused some difficulties with the TRILL over PPP draft that > the current charter prohibits the WG producing any documents, which > seems to also rule out the WG updating any security documents. > Furthermore, I believe that our AD is inclined to shut down the WG if > the current situation doesn't change. >=20 >> But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a = brand >> new WG to deal with scheduling. >=20 > Everything has benefits and costs. That it takes some effort to > schedule a meeting for a group that has not met in a long time does > not seem like the exclusively controlling factor to me. >=20 > Thanks, > Donald > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com >=20 >> - Mark >>=20 >> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. >> _______________________________________________ >> Pppext mailing list >> Pppext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext >>=20 >>=20 --Apple-Mail-10-150128780 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=3Dcharter-pppex= t-2006-07-03.txt

It seems a few sentences = were added in 2009, in particular the unfortunate text that = says: 

"The group is not expected to = create new specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a = recharter is required."

This looks like = Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs = ;-)

With this new sentence, yes, it looks like = pppext is unnecessarily hamstrung from advancing enhancements that the = group does *not* think are of questionable = value. 

- = Mark

Hi = Mark,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> = wrote:

On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn = wrote:

Actually I wrote the = following:

One = question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the = November
IETF meeting? I think that would = be the best way to come to = consensus
on this but obviously only if = enough people would plan to = actually
attend. So, I'd be interested in = who would attend and any = opinions
for or against such a = meeting.

PPPEXT hasn't = met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't = changed
significantly since = Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a = physical
meeting is worth = having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. =  If
you have any PPP = experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, = James,
and others happen to = have moved on to other areas that require = IETF
presence.

I don't have any particular = problem operating PPPEXT without meetings,
if that is what people = want, either under the current charter or an
expanded charter to do = some security stuff.

If you are dead = set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext = charter,
and pointed to it as = a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG = several
times as AD) then = round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat = with
them in the hallway and = take it to the list. It could even be a fun = bar
outing, looking back on = the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig = and
Karl Fox to dig up some = memorabilia.

Well, it caused some difficulties with = the TRILL over PPP draft that
the current charter prohibits the WG = producing any documents, which
seems to also rule out the WG updating = any security documents.
Furthermore, I believe that our AD is = inclined to shut down the WG if
the current situation doesn't = change.

But, please don't make Marcia = deal with what to her will look like a brand
new WG to deal with = scheduling.

Everything has benefits and costs. That = it takes some effort to
schedule a meeting for a group that has not = met in a long time does
not seem like the exclusively controlling = factor to = me.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 Donald E. = Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver = Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

- Mark

I would attend = if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing = list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/pppext



= --Apple-Mail-10-150128780-- From william.allen.simpson@gmail.com Fri Sep 9 18:08:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9525521F85CE for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jHF94kDFizQ for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC1621F85C6 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb17 with SMTP id 17so2574533gwb.15 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ATF6tjpFt11cOpFiEJSfJGyDYJrpXk3XJ5z61Ejk4M=; b=LJoNaqhO0mtj1Yk4gFpEcqe+GFGrFlPD4dVeXNbDHxxj0dqRDdYYJkC4UaS/tFcK58 brWyWbY4O8rqVZTS6uZqEL0GJ+wLnJGJcBkT9fnbBmexquhGXqM39NcQXdaWs9YJjwBJ +eTzZigOfTb3ZUzceCnGukaNtESlcIUDgoY9c= Received: by 10.236.178.73 with SMTP id e49mr15938277yhm.60.1315617046876; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Wastrel-3.local (c-68-40-194-239.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.40.194.239]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s42sm8404503yhs.0.2011.09.09.18.10.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E6AB917.90509@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:10:47 -0400 From: William Allen Simpson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF PPP Extensions References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:08:51 -0000 On 9/9/11 7:51 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed before and during my tenure as AD: > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=charter-pppext-2006-07-03.txt > > It seems a few sentences were added in 2009, in particular the unfortunate text that says: > > "The group is not expected to create new specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is required." > > This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-) > > With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily hamstrung from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think are of questionable value. > Ha! You nailed it in one!!! # Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:35:24 +0300 # From: Jari Arkko # Subject: [Pppext] Charter update # And my response was: $ Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:22 -0400 $ From: William Allen Simpson $ Subject: Re: [Pppext] Charter update $ $ Jari Arkko wrote: $ > The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with a $ > large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions. The $ > PPPEXT working exists to provide a forum for asking clarifications $ > about the existing specifications and to defend against enhancements $ > of questionable value. The group is not expected to create new $ > specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is $ > required. The group may, however, advance existing specifications $ > to the next level in the standards track, if a need for that comes up. $ > $ Seems OK, other than "not expected to create new specifications". $ $ Recent security research has rather obsoleted the ancient authentication $ and encryption specifications. Every once in awhile, I've been thinking $ about writing some replacement transforms.... $ $ How about changing to: "... new specifications, other than replacing or $ updating authentication, confidentiality, and improved key management $ specifications. If a need for other additional work arises, ...." $ $ Another thing that group probably ought to discuss is formally retiring $ some of the ancient Proposed work as Historic. $ $ Admittedly, we gave up on advancing things like IPCP, as IPv4 was supposedly $ ready to be replaced (for the past 15 years). Ha! $ From narten@us.ibm.com Fri Sep 9 18:26:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6625E21F8558 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dpidMh5okYnN for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531921F8540 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8A06nGZ031908 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:06:49 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p8A1RBxO271150 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p8A1Qu5k018749 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:26:56 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-154-30.mts.ibm.com [9.76.154.30]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p8A1Qpjl018329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:26:55 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p8A1QxVI003799; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:27:02 -0400 Message-Id: <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Donald Eastlake In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Donald Eastlake message dated "Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:24:24 -0400." Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:26:59 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:26:35 -0000 Donald Eastlake writes: > In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation continues > unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next year. Care to elaborate on this? Or did I miss something? > In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the > PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF > security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP > security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then > at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be > declared historic. > My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the > above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome > suggestions and comments on all this. Is there any evidence that the participants on this list have *any* (and I do mean *any*) energy to do any such work? And would anyone even care? (By that, are there still folk doing PPP implementations that would read such documents?) This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal world). > One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November > IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus > on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually > attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions > for or against such a meeting. If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I see no evidence that such time would be well spent. Thomas From vjs@rhyolite.com Fri Sep 9 20:35:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9D621F85B1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:35:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8TlVK2s6lKt for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B9C21F85AE for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8A3bLT2074938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for env-from ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:37:21 GMT Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8A3bINo074937 for pppext@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:37:18 GMT Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:37:18 GMT From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <201109100337.p8A3bINo074937@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: pppext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:35:36 -0000 > From: Thomas Narten > (By that, are there still folk doing PPP implementations > that would read such documents?) > > This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic > given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the > charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter > how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal > world). A more accurate way to say that is that this WG should not be turned into a vanity press for old folks trying to prove we're not irrelevant. If there is real and substantial work to be done, then it should be proposed before changing the charter in sufficient detail to convince honest and well informed third parties that and how the charter should be changed. Observations that the security of PPP protocols might be improved would be valid but entirely insufficient. Significant needs and potential fixes must be proposed before starting yet another multi-year PPP project that would not finish before IPv4 address exhaustion finally makes IPv6 real. ... Personally I think PPP insecurity was never a very pressing problem, because link layer security never mattered as much as security at higher layers. Besides, other link layer protocols such as 802.11 that are more popular (measured by nodes using them) and less secure (as commonly deployed) make the insecurity of PPP links moot. What bad guy would bother attacking a PPP/DSL link when a radio can get bits on and off the same PPP link easier and with fewer traces? Link layer encryption, authentication, and authorization don't matter a lot if you have end-to-end confidentiality, authentication, authorization, non-repudiation, etc. On the other hand, if you haven't secured things end-to-end, then link layer security is snake oil. If you've the least connection to today's operational security community, you know that the worst that could happen with a link layer attack is trivial compared what happens now in higher layers. Even if this WG could fix PPP security this decade, wouldn't the effort of the rest of the IETF in reviewing, advancing, and shuffling our documents be better spent in the higher layers? Recall BPG security, what DigiNotar and Comodo prove about PKI (that we all knew many years ago), old style insecure DNS, DNSSEC vulnerabilities analogous to the PKI problems, the RIR issues, and so forth and so on and on. It would be nice to fix nasty messes such as PPPoE, but that ship has also sailed. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com From glenzorn@gmail.com Fri Sep 9 22:29:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4725521F85DA for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:29:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUG1JKQx8gYM for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C4021F85D1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so577435ywa.31 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:30:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mE1grlF3sKdIcf0/RU5p1zwu876oWwVeau3wf8jof7Q=; b=f0aKG60LsRERz6mCnF4Cm8AZspOxmd4ojJ4fcDYax5T3j8lLHAcVMQ4dbebT2xGYWM Ir1zbDtRY5sJuNlvocpqxOkH3LxpMYFUSwbKjOa5DLbOBP219HU3L+78bhMzE9DNTsbI CIqTByW4FM/oiOUX1cki3NMgjOBIo04NmKySg= Received: by 10.150.59.2 with SMTP id h2mr2824782yba.363.1315632657275; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.99] (ppp-58-11-144-164.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.11.144.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b4sm4010634ank.3.2011.09.09.22.30.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E6AF60A.60907@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:30:50 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Donald Eastlake References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:29:01 -0000 On 9/10/2011 1:18 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: ... >>> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the >>> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF >>> security guidelines. >> >> Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you >> consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is >> how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)? > > I should think the PPPEXT WG would decided which guidelines, subject > to the constrains of getting documents through the IETF process :-) > >>> I believe that there should be an update of PPP >>> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then >>> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be >>> declared historic. >> >> Do you have a list of said RFCs? > > I don't think it is complete but how about the following to start with: > > "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)", > RFC 1968, June 1996. > "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication > Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. > "The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE)", RFC 2420, September 1998. > OK, I guess the crux of my previous question (which I apparently did not express well) is whether or not the proposed updates are solely or at least primarily editorial in nature (e.g., bringing the Security Considerations section into line with the recommendations of RFC 3552). Of the documents you mention, I suspect that RFC 1968 & RFC 2420 could probably be changed any way we want to, since AFAIK there are no actual deployments of either (I request correction!) but we can't go changing the way that CHAP works. ... From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 22:42:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0720921F8669 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnJbA+jDQa8j for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc1-s14.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s14.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F09221F863E for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU152-W63 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s14.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:44:02 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f524bd65-cb0d-49f6-a631-8e056a62b8aa_" X-Originating-IP: [70.88.131.169] From: Bernard Aboba To: "narten@us.ibm.com" Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 22:44:02 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: , <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2011 05:44:02.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[A51B9D60:01CC6F7C] Cc: pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:42:10 -0000 --_f524bd65-cb0d-49f6-a631-8e056a62b8aa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering=2C I see>= no evidence that such time would be well spent. [BA] +1 After such a long hiatus=2C I do not think it is wise to attempt to re-acti= vate this WG.=20 However=2C I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night" where we play m= usic from the 90s=2C and reminisce about dialup modems.=20 = --_f524bd65-cb0d-49f6-a631-8e056a62b8aa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 =3B>=3B If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about recha= rtering=2C I see
>=3B no evidence that such time would be well = spent.

[BA] +1

After such a long= hiatus=2C I do not think it is wise to attempt to re-activate this WG.&nbs= p=3B

However=2C I might consider attending a "PPP = Reunion Night" where we play music from the 90s=2C and reminisce about dial= up modems. =3B


= --_f524bd65-cb0d-49f6-a631-8e056a62b8aa_-- From mark@townsley.net Sat Sep 10 02:31:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D401521F8560 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LOJGlF6mImrh for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D7221F84FA for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so2278356wyg.31 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.132.205 with SMTP id c13mr1230854wbt.12.1315647187753; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-8712.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m2sm9919324wbp.5.2011.09.10.02.33.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-11-185051547 From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:33:04 +0200 Message-Id: <455BD280-A0B0-4B2C-B7A8-2D45B0CB87FB@townsley.net> References: , <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Bernard Aboba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "narten@us.ibm.com" , pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:31:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail-11-185051547 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I = see > > no evidence that such time would be well spent. >=20 > [BA] +1 >=20 > After such a long hiatus, I do not think it is wise to attempt to = re-activate this WG.=20 >=20 > However, I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night" where we = play music from the 90s, and reminisce about dialup modems.=20 Now *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily = attend :-) In addition to the 90s music, I think this would have to be our theme = song... http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ - Mark >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext --Apple-Mail-11-185051547 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard = Aboba wrote:

 > If the purpose of such a meeting is = to talk about rechartering, I see
> no evidence that such = time would be well spent.

[BA] = +1

After such a long hiatus, I do not think it = is wise to attempt to re-activate this = WG. 

However, I might consider attending a = "PPP Reunion Night" where we play music from the 90s, and reminisce = about dialup = modems. 

Now= *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily attend = :-)

In addition to the 90s music, I think this = would have to be our theme song...


- = Mark




__________________________= _____________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/pppext

= --Apple-Mail-11-185051547-- From glenzorn@gmail.com Sun Sep 11 00:11:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49AF21F8461 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:11:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ej5E2J4BBNw7 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCF521F851F for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so17675169pzk.18 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:13:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ZNBit1v1y+3uw0uXVfAfXuWsK8LWiN/4MCOYXb+/C4=; b=FSplf1cKVkd9xbTXqFcYBzpD7ao40/ZsLMw5PMzzO4+keux5aPoCGKwX0dCqrdYFsF 2OCz8L4ZQlEOR+RXhNys/rU4OzsZ5/z1V5TTedr0zCrWmrNSgXnMvm4/5TteMmfKsc8/ Wzoip+lPq1IIJEnoKuMSSdRuVzQcCh3ecUq7w= Received: by 10.68.0.69 with SMTP id 5mr2885364pbc.143.1315725204836; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-110-169-210-253.revip5.asianet.co.th. [110.169.210.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm33558490pbp.2.2011.09.11.00.13.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:13:16 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Townsley References: , <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <455BD280-A0B0-4B2C-B7A8-2D45B0CB87FB@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: <455BD280-A0B0-4B2C-B7A8-2D45B0CB87FB@townsley.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bernard Aboba , "narten@us.ibm.com" , pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:11:31 -0000 On 9/10/2011 4:33 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > >> > If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I see >> > no evidence that such time would be well spent. >> >> [BA] +1 >> >> After such a long hiatus, I do not think it is wise to attempt to >> re-activate this WG. >> >> However, I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night" where we >> play music from the 90s, and reminisce about dialup modems. > > Now *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily > attend :-) > > In addition to the 90s music, I think this would have to be our theme > song... > > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. ... From vjs@rhyolite.com Sun Sep 11 07:21:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4981721F849B for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7C20uEbMfad1 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7054E21F846C for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8BEMvi5006794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for env-from ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:58 GMT Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8BEMtnS006793 for pppext@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:55 GMT Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:55 GMT From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: pppext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:21:18 -0000 > From: Glen Zorn > > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ > > Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it > would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our > "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to > remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the > first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; > not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the > connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang > their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. Do people outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless? Have you noticed the lack of modems and serial ports on modern portable computers? That you can still buy a USB modem doesn't make PPP less obsolete than floppy disks. Last month I bought a USB modem so that I can dial with my new portable, but that is mostly sign of my failure to move with the times. The salesman wasn't clear about what I wanted, and I didn't find a lot of choices. Somewhere I also have a USB floppy drive. How would reissuing PPP RFCs with new security boilerplate help anyone except the authors of the new RFCs? What would people working on PPP code do differently if the PPP RFCs had modern security sections? How many people are working on implementations of PPPoE or any other flavor of PPP code? If moving the never deployed PPP RFCs to Historic and reissuing the rest with new security sections were all that would happen, it would be only a dubious effort. But there would be irresistible pressures to to fix CHAP, MP, and even IPCP. The replacements, delivered after years of wrangling (and no implementations), would be as ill considered as PAP, PPPoE, and the recently proposed IS-IS security fix. If against all likelihood they were eventually deployed, they'd be discovered to be as insecure as many of the wireless security schemes and cause interoperabilty problems as the PPPoE MTU still does. The primary defense against those "improvements" would the fact that no one (especially not the new RFC authors) would implement them and fewer would deploy them. Once upon a time, the IETF produced protocols to fill clear and present user needs and demands. Ostensibly fixing PPP with new security words is the sort of idle hands standards committee exercise that destroyed the ISO OSI protocol suite. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com From glenzorn@gmail.com Sun Sep 11 09:14:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C11221F8562 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msLaf9zOm2BT for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C98B21F84A0 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so19440631pzk.18 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:16:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qCA7Vi+toRbXxf8L+XctgCx/JUn32LoChFvJx4k1f18=; b=fhlK4jHwk8ZmQ3FcVqmJnWySYhdQdzG5fdpAou80fwhVCth3V/yWlEQg4B35jhS1Qk TAfU4rhYKP23sq06Vlu6P+WbyohX4e2A6hq+8f9ZfSnVVBaWBUV+IgV7vhz6vbFUxn6m xxXso4LaYqx6ZpG2tx8xm+j+exT7jxT9UU06M= Received: by 10.68.4.70 with SMTP id i6mr809455pbi.503.1315757770660; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-110-169-210-253.revip5.asianet.co.th. [110.169.210.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lv3sm6787416pbb.9.2011.09.11.09.16.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E6CDEC2.4000408@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:16:02 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver References: <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:14:11 -0000 On 9/11/2011 9:22 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Glen Zorn > >>> http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ >> >> Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it >> would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our >> "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to >> remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the >> first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; >> not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the >> connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang >> their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. > > I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. Upon what do you base that claim? > Do people > outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless? I won't claim to know what _all_ the people outside technologically advanced countries use (I'll just leave that to you ;-). However, here in Thailand, in Cambodia and Laos lots of people have still use dial-up (though they may be using a mobile phone as a modem). > Have you > noticed the lack of modems and serial ports on modern portable computers? Actually, no: the last one I bought (~6 months ago) had a built-in modem and an Ethernet port. My new Android tablet has only Bluetooth & WiFi, but it's really more of a phone than a computer IMHO. > That you can still buy a USB modem doesn't make PPP less obsolete than > floppy disks. Last month I bought a USB modem so that I can dial with > my new portable, but that is mostly sign of my failure to move with > the times. The salesman wasn't clear about what I wanted, and I didn't > find a lot of choices. Somewhere I also have a USB floppy drive. > > How would reissuing PPP RFCs with new security boilerplate help > anyone except the authors of the new RFCs? What would people working > on PPP code do differently if the PPP RFCs had modern security > sections? How many people are working on implementations of PPPoE > or any other flavor of PPP code? Chill out, Vern, I'm not suggesting that our esteemed Chair's idea is anything like a good one; I was merely responding to I perceived as the rather patronizing tone of the emails in question. > > If moving the never deployed PPP RFCs to Historic and reissuing the > rest with new security sections were all that would happen, it would > be only a dubious effort. But there would be irresistible pressures > to to fix CHAP, MP, and even IPCP. The replacements, delivered after > years of wrangling (and no implementations), would be as ill considered > as PAP, PPPoE, and the recently proposed IS-IS security fix. If against > all likelihood they were eventually deployed, they'd be discovered to > be as insecure as many of the wireless security schemes and cause > interoperabilty problems as the PPPoE MTU still does. > > The primary defense against those "improvements" would the fact > that no one (especially not the new RFC authors) would implement > them and fewer would deploy them. > > Once upon a time, the IETF produced protocols to fill clear and > present user needs and demands. Ostensibly fixing PPP with new > security words is the sort of idle hands standards committee > exercise that destroyed the ISO OSI protocol suite. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext From mark@townsley.net Sun Sep 11 09:41:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E0E21F84CD for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:41:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7C0zFq1oNgav for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BB621F84C2 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so250500wwf.13 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.199.16 with SMTP id eq16mr73464wbb.48.1315759439145; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-8712.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp5sm13601400wbb.2.2011.09.11.09.43.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:43:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <03B58D86-13B3-4A30-B9D3-C9158CD040B3@townsley.net> References: , <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <455BD280-A0B0-4B2C-B7A8-2D45B0CB87FB@townsley.net> <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> To: Glen Zorn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Bernard Aboba , "narten@us.ibm.com" , pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:41:59 -0000 On Sep 11, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 9/10/2011 4:33 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >>=20 >>>> If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I = see >>>> no evidence that such time would be well spent. >>>=20 >>> [BA] +1 >>>=20 >>> After such a long hiatus, I do not think it is wise to attempt to >>> re-activate this WG.=20 >>>=20 >>> However, I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night" where we >>> play music from the 90s, and reminisce about dialup modems.=20 >>=20 >> Now *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily >> attend :-) >>=20 >> In addition to the 90s music, I think this would have to be our theme >> song... >>=20 >> http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ >=20 > Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it > would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our > "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to > remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the > first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; > not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the > connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang > their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. >=20 > ... Obsolete? No. Stable, mature, and in no need of tinkering with? Yes.=20 I find listening to the modem training nostalgic (teenage years running = BBS systems, not to mention building access servers at IBM and Cisco). I = was just guessing others do here as well. This list is not = representative of the entire world of Internet users.=20 Last time I ran into this same sound in real life was just this summer, = using an ATM machine at a gas station in Wisconsin. So, yes, of course = all this stuff is still in use, and not just outside the US/Euro-zone. = Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. So, let's chill, and if we do have a PPP get-together and we can both be = there, I'll happily buy you the first round ;-) - Mark= From d3e3e3@gmail.com Sun Sep 11 20:58:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DBB21F87E2 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWkq4TnEqe-M for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E4B21F87D6 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so618826fxd.31 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yCdOjfsB4ozBYMOiTVXQ8fF9evpWrpy/pmYAHPcN6wI=; b=MoXTUAerPUwl/7e9rgpC7/OKpl39MUWHDRfk6lU2V5vSajn3+f8ZcbXkvHKsHceKBr aY6N10o2/F/nqWOqB42Nod0pzaTqxQrzeWbWXYhPaGLCJNXWvyTgAFaCllOErL+23r/3 blrbql+WI984qgfGou90odP2h8Dj9jq8je2A8= Received: by 10.223.64.66 with SMTP id d2mr3584600fai.116.1315800031326; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.6.105 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:11 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Townsley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:58:30 -0000 Hi Mark, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed bef= ore > and during my tenure as AD: > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=3Dcharter-pppext-2006-07-03= .txt > It seems a few sentences were added in 2009, in particular the unfortunat= e > text that says: > "The group is not expected to create new=A0specifications, and if a need = for > such work comes up, a recharter is=A0required." Not only is that a problem for security documents, if any are desired, but it tripped up RFC 6361 that ended up having a four week IETF Last Call to fix the problem. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com > This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-) > With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily hamstr= ung > from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think are of > questionable value. > - Mark > > > On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > > Actually I wrote the following: > > One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November > > IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus > > on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually > > attend. So, I'd be interested in who would attend and any opinions > > for or against such a meeting. > > PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed > > significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical > > meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. =A0= If > > you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, James= , > > and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require IETF > > presence. > > I don't have any particular problem operating PPPEXT without meetings, > if that is what people want, either under the current charter or an > expanded charter to do some security stuff. > > If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext charter= , > > and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG several > > times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat wi= th > > them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun bar > > outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig an= d > > Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia. > > Well, it caused some difficulties with the TRILL over PPP draft that > the current charter prohibits the WG producing any documents, which > seems to also rule out the WG updating any security documents. > Furthermore, I believe that our AD is inclined to shut down the WG if > the current situation doesn't change. > > But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a bran= d > > new WG to deal with scheduling. > > Everything has benefits and costs. That it takes some effort to > schedule a meeting for a group that has not met in a long time does > not seem like the exclusively controlling factor to me. > > Thanks, > Donald > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA > =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com > > - Mark > > I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts. > > _______________________________________________ > > Pppext mailing list > > Pppext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > > > > From i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Sep 12 07:18:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A41B21F8B88 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oRFOR7BZueEZ for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B30A21F8B73 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p8CEJqQq024975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:20:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [192.207.23.55]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p8CEJon0030988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:19:52 -0500 Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (igoyret.lra.lucent.com [135.244.24.195]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8CEJinp008861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:19:48 -0700 Message-Id: <201109121419.p8CEJinp008861@cliff.eng.ascend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:17:00 -0700 To: Vernon Schryver From: Ignacio Goyret In-Reply-To: <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:18:51 -0000 At 02:22 PM 9/11/2011 +0000, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Glen Zorn > >> > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ >> >> Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it >> would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our >> "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to >> remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the >> first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; >> not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the >> connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang >> their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. > >I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. Do people >outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless? Actually, a *lot* of people still use dialup modems and in most cases, they don't even notice. One simple example: many point-of-sale devices (pretty much everywhere on the planet, including the US) do a quick V.21/V.22/V.23 dialup call to authorize a credit or debit card charge. And guess what: pretty much all of them use good, ol' PPP. Another device which is not as well spread in the US but is available in many, many countries is a little USB device that links up to 3G networks, allowing full IP traffic. Guess what: they also use PPP and the same dialup framework (even if there are no weeee-weeee, hiss-hiss sounds). BTW, as a simple reference, I happen to be right now in a country that would clearly fall in the "outside advanced countries" and, paraphrasing Glen, this email will start its trip using PPP over 3G. Cheers to all, -Ignacio From william.allen.simpson@gmail.com Mon Sep 12 08:03:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8C021F8BEF for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYEWX5wmggoe for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5546C21F8BEC for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so2931785gwb.31 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MOdWDVGb1RBihHdRESRm8Pu1E03FvKq6jVZl1fx2BWU=; b=isXId2vTta+NdpFwUgnRghaVJsbrptrhQPdz/K3zUNLUHZWUDZZagiOsSaeCvMMoIU V7KupmMkF3WHj9rhdzseCEzFjeq5orumU/vv7yLZbx6PVvs/7U3ngs+MSJ0UGNDwuagZ 3b+CdH1RlUQMaZA9XgaUrwT7mm5g/EYPhxlCI= Received: by 10.236.178.68 with SMTP id e44mr26909259yhm.131.1315839919766; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Wastrel-3.local (c-68-40-194-239.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.40.194.239]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o48sm14484737yhl.4.2011.09.12.08.05.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E6E1FAB.1080100@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:05:15 -0400 From: William Allen Simpson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pppext@ietf.org References: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> <201109121419.p8CEJinp008861@cliff.eng.ascend.com> In-Reply-To: <201109121419.p8CEJinp008861@cliff.eng.ascend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:03:17 -0000 On 9/12/11 10:17 AM, Ignacio Goyret wrote: > Actually, a *lot* of people still use dialup modems and in most cases, > they don't even notice. One simple example: many point-of-sale devices > (pretty much everywhere on the planet, including the US) do a quick > V.21/V.22/V.23 dialup call to authorize a credit or debit card charge. > > And guess what: pretty much all of them use good, ol' PPP. > Let us not forget PPP over SONET/SDH is taking this traffic across the pond(s).... From jacniq@gmail.com Mon Sep 12 20:51:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EED21F8B6C for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:51:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t7Mvi07CDSKe for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B249E21F8B21 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so267648vws.27 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:53:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+Yr/Z4FcrT6zvkbFkYyhlWH6nVrglALTJ3mwARAM7KE=; b=nKf5QjFuLD4IxRtIZ3b1KNoTOJK/n3ig8XhsoDJGqn7NAJyklOaO8B+D0GOrNiyPT8 +ELuO8eLnJP0+ZmMGOezEFB6dEYTAYspVlElF+SJgxdqVWv7WnPjzSuEYdAkdz86P3OQ ZHeLXEQIUBDemHiqU287WR8pcdEzf8jkgFKis= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.72.193 with SMTP id f1mr2095151vdv.284.1315886019681; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.161 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:53:39 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jacni Qin To: Donald Eastlake Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50160fbc49edb04acca9617 Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:51:42 -0000 --bcaec50160fbc49edb04acca9617 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Donald, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. > > Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. > Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP > proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing > the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation > continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next > year. > > In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the > PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF > security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP > security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then > at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be > declared historic. > > My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the > above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome > suggestions and comments on all this. > Besides security, there are also other efforts and active documents, such as, draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-08 draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd-00 draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions And for example, we are working revision of "draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions" to report the progress (e.g., the implementations, trials in pratical networks) by now. > One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November > IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus > on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually > attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions > for or against such a meeting. > I'll be there if there is one. Cheers, Jacni > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > --bcaec50160fbc49edb04acca9617 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Donald,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> w= rote:
Hi,

In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.

Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
year.

In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
declared historic.

My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
suggestions and comments on all this.

Besides secu= rity, there are also other efforts and active documents, such as,
draft-= boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-08
draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd-00 draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions

And for example, we are working re= vision of "draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions" to report
the pr= ogress (e.g., the implementations, trials in pratical networks) by now.


One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions for or against such a meeting.

I'll be there i= f there is one.


Cheers,
Jacni
=A0

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D
=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA
=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

--bcaec50160fbc49edb04acca9617-- From jacniq@gmail.com Mon Sep 12 20:52:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CAA21F8B6C for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ozNuaLZytgtl for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3C121F8B87 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vw0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 18so267648vws.27 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EDe7QAIvsdbdbxa5IlfTnOAEpplLJlgL2NYqsHf3qxA=; b=mE4li822TPMc0cmMrdaGIQtNjHd95puNnIOj7VS3nxtwe/Z5vv9oCDLJNZEysm/FPW 1doGzeXZd4VAlLCZsvSmM3/gl8bmHIc00FOvoKdzsRAX6voeRMmqjQvJl2whZDQp25Sh XyXkywuEBCeg2mlohpqDm1C9BHX20YhlvivrI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.69.177 with SMTP id f17mr628249vdu.150.1315886049230; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.161 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201109100337.p8A3bINo074937@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201109100337.p8A3bINo074937@calcite.rhyolite.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:54:09 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jacni Qin To: Vernon Schryver Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d00d0877f3b04acca987c Cc: pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:52:05 -0000 --20cf307d00d0877f3b04acca987c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Thomas Narten > > > (By that, are there still folk doing PPP implementations > > that would read such documents?) > > > > This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic > > given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the > > charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter > > how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal > > world). > > A more accurate way to say that is that this WG should not be turned > into a vanity press for old folks trying to prove we're not irrelevant. > > If there is real and substantial work to be done, then it should be > proposed before changing the charter in sufficient detail to convince > honest and well informed third parties that and how the charter should > be changed. > > Observations that the security of PPP protocols might be improved > would be valid but entirely insufficient. Significant needs and > potential fixes must be proposed before starting yet another > multi-year PPP project that would not finish before IPv4 address > exhaustion finally makes IPv6 real. > > Actually, we are trying to get things done in real world to smooth the path to IPv6, which seems to be welcome by some ISPs, since, there is a gap in the case of PPP for IPv6. I know it may have been discussed, and a suggestion was given, but some ISPs whose access networks are 90% based on PPP, and who are planning to deploy IPv6 for their comercial services, are not convinced. There're still works need to be done. Cheers, Jacni > ... > > Personally I think PPP insecurity was never a very pressing problem, > because link layer security never mattered as much as security at > higher layers. > > Besides, other link layer protocols such as 802.11 that are more > popular (measured by nodes using them) and less secure (as commonly > deployed) make the insecurity of PPP links moot. What bad guy would > bother attacking a PPP/DSL link when a radio can get bits on and > off the same PPP link easier and with fewer traces? > > Link layer encryption, authentication, and authorization don't > matter a lot if you have end-to-end confidentiality, authentication, > authorization, non-repudiation, etc. On the other hand, if you > haven't secured things end-to-end, then link layer security is > snake oil. > > If you've the least connection to today's operational security > community, you know that the worst that could happen with a link layer > attack is trivial compared what happens now in higher layers. Even > if this WG could fix PPP security this decade, wouldn't the effort > of the rest of the IETF in reviewing, advancing, and shuffling our > documents be better spent in the higher layers? Recall BPG security, > what DigiNotar and Comodo prove about PKI (that we all knew many years > ago), old style insecure DNS, DNSSEC vulnerabilities analogous to the > PKI problems, the RIR issues, and so forth and so on and on. > > > It would be nice to fix nasty messes such as PPPoE, but that ship > has also sailed. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > --20cf307d00d0877f3b04acca987c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com> wrote:
> From: Thomas Narten <narten@us= .ibm.com>

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(By that, are there still folk doing PPP implem= entations
> that would read such documents?)
>
> This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic=
> given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the<= br> > charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter > how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal
> world).

A more accurate way to say that is that this WG should not be turned<= br> into a vanity press for old folks trying to prove we're not irrelevant.=

If there is real and substantial work to be done, then it should be
proposed before changing the charter in sufficient detail to convince
honest and well informed third parties that and how the charter should
be changed.

Observations that the security of PPP protocols might be improved
would be valid but entirely insufficient. =A0Significant needs and
potential fixes must be proposed before starting yet another
multi-year PPP project that would not finish before IPv4 address
exhaustion finally makes IPv6 real.

Actually, we are trying to get things done in real wo= rld to smooth the path to IPv6, which seems
to be welcome by some ISPs, = since, there is a gap in the case of PPP for IPv6.
I know it may have be= en discussed, and a suggestion was given, but some ISPs whose access networ= ks are 90% based on PPP, and who are planning to deploy IPv6 for their come= rcial services, are not convinced.

There're still works need to be done.


Cheers,
Jacni=A0
=A0...

Personally I think PPP insecurity was never a very pressing problem,
because link layer security never mattered as much as security at
higher layers.

Besides, other link layer protocols such as 802.11 that are more
popular (measured by nodes using them) and less secure (as commonly
deployed) make the insecurity of PPP links moot. =A0What bad guy would
bother attacking a PPP/DSL link when a radio can get bits on and
off the same PPP link easier and with fewer traces?

Link layer encryption, authentication, and authorization don't
matter a lot if you have end-to-end confidentiality, authentication,
authorization, non-repudiation, etc. =A0On the other hand, if you
haven't secured things end-to-end, then link layer security is
snake oil.

If you've the least connection to today's operational security
community, you know that the worst that could happen with a link layer
attack is trivial compared what happens now in higher layers. =A0Even
if this WG could fix PPP security this decade, wouldn't the effort
of the rest of the IETF in reviewing, advancing, and shuffling our
documents be better spent in the higher layers? =A0Recall BPG security,
what DigiNotar and Comodo prove about PKI (that we all knew many years
ago), old style insecure DNS, DNSSEC vulnerabilities analogous to the
PKI problems, the RIR issues, and so forth and so on and on.


It would be nice to fix nasty messes such as PPPoE, but that ship
has also sailed.


Vernon Schryver =A0 =A0vjs@rhyolite.com=
__________________________________= _____________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

--20cf307d00d0877f3b04acca987c-- From jacniq@gmail.com Mon Sep 12 20:52:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542D221F8B94 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.442 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WCS8ct1tiBHz for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0898E21F8B6C for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so268876vws.27 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KWG9vCX6A9etcn7oT5ClG13SWBPd6S8JFAkxuouK9hM=; b=br53tqXPuv8cwNrge+yhmmTXCaBkEdjuqmc8WF2pG+kmo9NSiLz/5VdTpOzhWuzIbL 7YmLkW4tqJyzqrLHYjltlLFL02fMpjNGJeT69lIfyXNyqs2y3TGtM5wIrMdT9Hacz7C9 jmawKmAjGAh4eWHxaUBUou0L/Ttfnh/WUx3pQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.76.134 with SMTP id k6mr1750381vdw.418.1315886087894; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.161 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201109121419.p8CEJinp008861@cliff.eng.ascend.com> References: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com> <201109121419.p8CEJinp008861@cliff.eng.ascend.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:54:47 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jacni Qin To: Ignacio Goyret Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cd34d574fe04acca9aac Cc: pppext@ietf.org, Vernon Schryver Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:52:44 -0000 --20cf3071cd34d574fe04acca9aac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Ignacio Goyret < i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > At 02:22 PM 9/11/2011 +0000, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >> From: Glen Zorn > > > >> > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ > >> > >> Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it > >> would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our > >> "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to > >> remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the > >> first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; > >> not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the > >> connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang > >> their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. > > > >I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. Do people > >outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless? > > > Actually, a *lot* of people still use dialup modems and in most cases, > they don't even notice. One simple example: many point-of-sale devices > (pretty much everywhere on the planet, including the US) do a quick > V.21/V.22/V.23 dialup call to authorize a credit or debit card charge. > > And guess what: pretty much all of them use good, ol' PPP. > > Another device which is not as well spread in the US but is available > in many, many countries is a little USB device that links up to 3G > networks, allowing full IP traffic. Guess what: they also use PPP and > the same dialup framework (even if there are no weeee-weeee, hiss-hiss > sounds). > > Right, the PPP/PPPoE has much wider scope of applications, For example, in my place, even in the context of LAN, xPON access, my ISPs still chose PPPoE instead of "IPoE", since it's far from deliverable for commercial services. Actually the protocols (e.g. DHCPv6, SLAAC) are all good enough, but from operational perpective, I mean for example AAA, that mode is not mature. BTW, as a simple reference, I happen to be right now in a country > that would clearly fall in the "outside advanced countries" and, > paraphrasing Glen, this email will start its trip using PPP over 3G. > > You got the point, me too, I'm using PPP over UMTS to send this message. ;-) Cheers, Jacni > Cheers to all, > -Ignacio > > > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > --20cf3071cd34d574fe04acca9aac Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com= > wrote:
At 02:22 PM 9/11/2011 +00= 00, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>> From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn= @gmail.com>
>
>> > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/<= br> >>
>> Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but = it
>> would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world o= ur
>> "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet &am= p; is likely to
>> remain so for a considerable period of time. =A0This email will ma= ke the
>> first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for examp= le;
>> not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the >> connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans ha= ng
>> their heads in shame). =A0In short, PPP is far from obsolete.
>
>I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. =A0Do = people
>outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless?


Actually, a *lot* of people still use dialup modems and in most cases= ,
they don't even notice. One simple example: many point-of-sale devices<= br> (pretty much everywhere on the planet, including the US) do a quick
V.21/V.22/V.23 dialup call to authorize a credit or debit card charge.

And guess what: pretty much all of them use good, ol' PPP.

Another device which is not as well spread in the US but is available
in many, many countries is a little USB device that links up to 3G
networks, allowing full IP traffic. Guess what: they also use PPP and
the same dialup framework (even if there are no weeee-weeee, hiss-hiss
sounds).


Right, the PPP/PPPoE has much wider scope of appl= ications,
For example, in my place, even in the context of LAN, xPON acc= ess, my ISPs
still chose PPPoE instead of "IPoE", since it= 9;s far from deliverable for commercial services.
Actually the protocols (e.g. DHCPv6, SLAAC) are all good enough, but from o= perational
perpective, I mean for example AAA, that mode is not mature.<= br>

BTW, as a simple reference, I happen to be right now in a country
that would clearly fall in the "outside advanced countries" and,<= br> paraphrasing Glen, this email will start its trip using PPP over 3G.


You got the point, me too, I'm using PPP over= UMTS to send this message. ;-)


Cheers,
Jacni
=A0
Cheers to all,
-Ignacio


_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

--20cf3071cd34d574fe04acca9aac-- From jacniq@gmail.com Mon Sep 12 20:52:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBF821F8BB7 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.446 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6HvMY1pne6ki for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462C921F8BA9 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vw0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 18so268876vws.27 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:55:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eIIra7+OkoXLk3gaccupu/JFYyeRYv+pNcIXKfNwZ8U=; b=ZNNJWwinKIf63m2tkTaKbngqtFDm6TdPXZ8jowx+opCYzPas8yhYvXZsINXk6EY0t1 TQHZC7MIIerk/kkGpHEFEbxlcztg3B6TKTKCHbmyZ4VWTihPJcsvTWgXG6WJ55qLiWCu 8v8L8U5G9zn4Dc5XxpE4PBfIRob5DLZQ8Z/xY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.92.164 with SMTP id cn4mr702056vdb.16.1315886101442; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.161 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:55:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> References: <201109100127.p8A1QxVI003799@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <455BD280-A0B0-4B2C-B7A8-2D45B0CB87FB@townsley.net> <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:55:01 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jacni Qin To: Glen Zorn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015fbfa430fe04acca9b76 Cc: Bernard Aboba , "narten@us.ibm.com" , pppext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:52:57 -0000 --bcaec5015fbfa430fe04acca9b76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 hi, On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 9/10/2011 4:33 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > > > > On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > > >> > If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I see > >> > no evidence that such time would be well spent. > >> > >> [BA] +1 > >> > >> After such a long hiatus, I do not think it is wise to attempt to > >> re-activate this WG. > >> > >> However, I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night" where we > >> play music from the 90s, and reminisce about dialup modems. > > > > Now *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily > > attend :-) > > > > In addition to the 90s music, I think this would have to be our theme > > song... > > > > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ > > Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it > would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our > "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to > remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the > first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; > not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the > connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang > their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. > > +1 Cheers, Jacni > ... > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext > --bcaec5015fbfa430fe04acca9b76 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi,

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/10/2011 4:33 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:

>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>> =A0> If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about recharte= ring, I see
>> > no evidence that such time would be well spent.
>>
>> [BA] +1
>>
>> After such a long hiatus, I do not think it is wise to attempt to<= br> >> re-activate this WG.
>>
>> However, I might consider attending a "PPP Reunion Night"= ; where we
>> play music from the 90s, and reminisce about dialup modems.
>
> Now *that* sounds like a good use of time of which I would happily
> attend :-)
>
> In addition to the 90s music, I think this would have to be our theme<= br> > song...
>
> http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/

Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it<= br> would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our
"theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is lik= ely to
remain so for a considerable period of time. =A0This email will make the first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example;
not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the
connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang
their heads in shame). =A0In short, PPP is far from obsolete.


+1


Cheers,
Jacni
=A0
...
_________________________________________= ______
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

--bcaec5015fbfa430fe04acca9b76-- From d3e3e3@gmail.com Tue Sep 27 12:29:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D337721F8FCC for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RX6FLzheJqdK for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4BC21F8F87 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so7541893iab.31 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:32:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RSdOv65Sg4nH1hA94d2tNwhEz8Q6bCWx0H0UOBNTpLo=; b=ciuaCprjpFZuqQD39A4QFvWIIhWkd8Dc1CzLKc1Tow9/fVPapCLMaG7D7KAeGuKlgu JgBJkdcQuxNycPdDnpsrRsGJs7N4wyW22pISOwDo+hZr5s+7rVz8w42i6a+zVVyDevHb Dr0lngSwLEFPYjdCbkJGGahl8jTVvbsT8KDS0= Received: by 10.231.26.145 with SMTP id e17mr10954691ibc.41.1317151930521; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:32:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.13.72 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:31:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:31:49 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF PPP Extensions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:29:25 -0000 There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan. Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. > > Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. > Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP > proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing > the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation > continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next > year. > > In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the > PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF > security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP > security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then > at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be > declared historic. > > My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the > above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome > suggestions and comments on all this. > > One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November > IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus > on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually > attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions > for or against such a meeting. > > Thanks, > Donald > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA > =A0d3e3e3@gmail.com > From glenzorn@gmail.com Tue Sep 27 21:17:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B65F21F853E for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:17:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Riq7xShtcJXB for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6DF21F858C for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so7127606yic.31 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:20:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Aow8RdWgD4Pq7cGDI7xfonw9JtPwbrIxpx1faQwVFJ0=; b=AibZ3D+yn0hQUQ7QLfpSGx970Z4fjJnQaCKYCqOpE9oKDlH2hhHOhKF9jRCsgcxWsH ZY6nkvJjZsrhIe+0HgFxfOdE1haxOlLlKY0xcu2Hi7vT+cQG9MVDtcWeeMmt8EDB8TPo 65/rkQUsc/tJ+zIVmHG4ncML6ReCIjLxe0Vk0= Received: by 10.150.160.7 with SMTP id i7mr6178328ybe.373.1317183616298; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-110-169-254-11.revip5.asianet.co.th. [110.169.254.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s20sm24160995ank.11.2011.09.27.21.20.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:20:04 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Donald Eastlake References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:17:30 -0000 On 9/28/2011 2:31 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan. > > Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions. Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done when it (the WG) is gone. ... From mark@townsley.net Tue Sep 27 23:34:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046A121F8BE7 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJIf0HEcm0Ze for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CC121F8BE4 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so5616127wwf.13 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.15 with SMTP id b15mr8717611wbb.75.1317191851080; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.108] (dan75-4-82-239-58-63.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.58.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s30sm9260865wbm.12.2011.09.27.23.37.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:37:26 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: Donald Eastlake X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:34:45 -0000 On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan. And a "get-together" of PPP old-far^H^H^Htimers? - Mark > > Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT. >> >> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years. >> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP >> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing >> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation >> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next >> year. >> >> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the >> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF >> security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP >> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then >> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be >> declared historic. >> >> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the >> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome >> suggestions and comments on all this. >> >> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November >> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus >> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually >> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions >> for or against such a meeting. >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> ============================= >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com >> > _______________________________________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext From carlsonj@workingcode.com Wed Sep 28 05:29:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF62521F8C91 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h8qd7mmL+Y-X for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carlson.workingcode.com (carlsonj-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DD721F8C56 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.50.23.149] (gate.abinitio.com [65.170.40.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by carlson.workingcode.com (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8SCWIZ7021839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:32:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E8313D2.5070705@workingcode.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:32:18 -0400 From: James Carlson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn References: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-URT-Metrics: carlson; whitelist Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:29:45 -0000 Glen Zorn wrote: > On 9/28/2011 2:31 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan. >> >> Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions. > > Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its > demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done > when it (the WG) is gone. Please clarify: an update in what way? The existing document requires "IETF Consensus" for a certain set of protocol numbers in order to ensure that any work that's done has meaningful review. I think this is a good thing, and certainly should not be considered "obsolete." In the absence of an IETF PPPEXT WG, I'd expect that any "necessary work" in these areas would be done in the context of (and likely in service to) some other working group, with others outside that group solicited for comment as needed. "PPPEXT" then becomes as necessary to the process as would be an "ICMPEXT" group. If anything, I think RFC 3818 should be strengthened, not abandoned. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W From vjs@rhyolite.com Wed Sep 28 06:45:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7535221F8D3D for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_OBFU_PUBLICATION=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5dY2qQuJTvIO for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADE521F8CEB for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8SDmA2O051080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for env-from ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:10 GMT Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8SDm4ui051075 for pppext@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:04 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:04 GMT From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <201109281348.p8SDm4ui051075@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: pppext@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:45:28 -0000 > From: Glen Zorn > Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its > demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done > when it (the WG) is gone. RFC 3818 does nothing but require that IANA demand IETF consensus (not necessarily consensus in this WG) before assigning new numbers in some address spaces. So how would changing RFC 3818 be useful and to whom? How would replacing RFC 3818 help users and implementors of PPP related protocols, as opposed to helping people with personal needs to be RFC authors? If future necessary work can't get IETF consensus to replace RFC 3818 when the need arises, then its necessarity is not a proper concern of the IETF. Changing RFC 3818 would only slightly ease publiccation of ill considered ideas driven not by technical needs but by misunderstanding, hurt feelings, or vanity like the majority of PPP related IDs for the last 10 years. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com From william.allen.simpson@gmail.com Thu Sep 29 04:15:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82CB21F8CE4 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ZP28ZpFGN4w for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3E021F8CD2 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so536818yic.31 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lcf4C/ItE29QqiJsgPu5ryyoimcoNnHgie79X+E/DQY=; b=ma4yxaZ7rjKZnSKgpbodS9cmpeAV8lgYTZ28yJG+93C2S6vpBDdIH4VCl8eNINLJvl 36IKOnCzOeGgkhf1F6D0WNerbeNVCAM9At+VS2moP3sdvEFwfJ1hvuTld/mQHTcU9xTD HETAn3bd/zFknrZWmIk61SwtbqbgC8qjMSDpo= Received: by 10.236.185.37 with SMTP id t25mr51724714yhm.131.1317295104666; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Wastrel-3.local (c-68-40-194-239.hsd1.mi.comcast.net. [68.40.194.239]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n4sm4073290anf.10.2011.09.29.04.18.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E8453FD.10407@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:18:21 -0400 From: William Allen Simpson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pppext@ietf.org References: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PPP Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:15:35 -0000 On 9/28/11 12:20 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its > demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done > when it (the WG) is gone. > Glen, what needs to be changed? I didn't pay any particular attention to it at the time, but this really looks like a one-off RFC to update some kind of IANA considerations. It doesn't appear to be idiotic. Anything new will have new IANA considerations.