From d3e3e3@gmail.com Sun May 12 03:01:22 2013 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 1108821F86CE for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.521, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 6uj08+UHTfVV for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBD221F86BB for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id un3so569937obb.33 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=TD0DMfaXYGDmAqfY/sjecYqiFTg7d9UvgQaj6KGPkYo=; b=O/xkeEk3sCo3q5a96lIwuJazTgg4NlHQHAQ+OK6IIXT6fd8uCPQ9nHLYUpGKbiu9Um jkV7iSeWCvP1MO5B0JS7eT7DW9SIBUB6BGlhLkXVOxGlsa4zYmKMBbku5w83SNmwA7WL 23Y00UVzHQwPlS7lci9cXaT7uLutPl75zJx7yaiDS7+WxOTC3uQU7JT2gbycJDHWQRQt w+4/u2HnpyLh7Qs7hdZWztfSvRuRB7ilynKdyOO/ECm2Soaf79BxSfkAUaA3bczy1HMS OWI6zcbBt+2obIXglZ2aLouje/BGLedXmq2PVYKUIbrFd8HZr8nnqc/eGjt8wxHxYGgA M5wA== X-Received: by 10.60.56.168 with SMTP id b8mr10380203oeq.5.1368352881096; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.10.8 with HTTP; Sun, 12 May 2013 03:01:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 06:01:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF PPP Extensions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 12 May 2013 10:01:22 -0000 Hi, Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC. I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards or to obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would require a Charter change. To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is appropriate." I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Sun May 12 15:55:48 2013 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 B42DC21F847B for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 HSsXn7gUjeoL for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc1-s1.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s1.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DE621F8709 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU404-EAS227 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:43 -0700 X-EIP: [eqi6kRBbArJp5Z+4WEijCnM5OsDyG85q] X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: From: Bernard Aboba MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:38 -0700 To: Donald Eastlake X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2013 22:55:43.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4F73350:01CE4F63] Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 12 May 2013 22:55:48 -0000 I see no point in creating new PPP security standards at this point. On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote: > Hi, > > Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP standards > track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under the right > circumstances, be done without a new RFC. > > I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to review > the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving to Historic > those which don't meet modern security standards or to obsolete them > with a new version which does... The later would require a Charter > change. > > To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, however, > advance existing specifications to the next level in the standards > track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group may classify > existing specifications as Historic where this is appropriate." > > I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a brief > meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would be a good > time to request it. (I just noticed that the session request tool has > an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I never noticed before. > While WGs have had very short meetings, I can't recall one scheduled > for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such a meeting at the next IETF > Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... > > Thanks, > Donald [PPPEXT Chair] > ============================= > 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 glenzorn@gmail.com Sun May 12 22:33:25 2013 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 A9F3F21F8F6E for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 Dun3OAGG4R4o for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E44421F8F69 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so896338pbb.20 for ; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=b20FDCov7oydceYMSZmMIDjwXvYAGn1NUXpJjFXcfzE=; b=QBbWcmRqMANg+bl/XowBU06QZCfl8Oq+XkFbnHbdoBw5/Vu1jMOX6N+bVZhpQ9ygDp jnRMgfpqESpuZKd4RcTj7UUTQbyKA60e/7k9ZFb48RAWerXjLgbtPzYRu99muuqnCZQa 4HzDBzjLxlrD7r48CXh6uMHccbfzSS3up7HP5ZGCqUnCGKgF7IvvRpHpirDxoLjCZygQ g7XY3UAtVh7OLgMnZfoSQkgLGo+uDU7fBDdSnjH6nR2mSiZG0Vlkq6XVDhdeuvQ3Hpeb 9YfQBLmANU2TYb2Kxkt2ld8GdRrYmZj17IGn1F7xE/6kOp/HOZX8JALY68QorHt+7YHY v+bg== X-Received: by 10.68.19.103 with SMTP id d7mr27460635pbe.156.1368423201900; Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.104] (ppp-58-11-136-197.revip2.asianet.co.th. [58.11.136.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ih1sm12544411pbb.44.2013.05.12.22.33.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 12 May 2013 22:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51907B1C.3050300@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:33:16 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 13 May 2013 05:33:25 -0000 On 05/13/2013 05:55 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > I see no point in creating new PPP security standards at this point. > I agree. > > > On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP >> standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under >> the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC. >> >> I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to >> review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving >> to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards or to >> obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would >> require a Charter change. >> >> To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, >> however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the >> standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group >> may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is >> appropriate." >> >> I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a >> brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would >> be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session >> request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I >> never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I >> can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such >> a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... >> >> Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] ============================= 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 > _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext From karl@lithik.com Mon May 13 05:54:04 2013 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 9632E21F95E5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=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 OQbN7RHBy1Yh for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B1421F9403 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id aq17so12254908iec.15 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ScE8h1pUfOTF3tfGXQdC6hNBPnG/6oyZ4ns7A5W99tI=; b=e54NMWcnWeTlbrIGwtAnYtGDZYQiNM+DTiuORDT/+wsEhf0kh5oVH1LT/P7Pp/6x8x NQxyFKNDuE4Aih9ZeBpAnLF5XnM1xbeLPzpmG9zcsF2lB+/bzSzKkqF4WK8ysz0uefk6 RJnRw9bcZKYE3WvVq1SsI5cvixlbTKGNrcbshduae1jKh5pHZfkwx/G16+++uHtaGtEl u5vnLAi7lmFNicwG+ef8ln37l3WDd/HFJNieQB5TWDNHr63XRaVN23R56Pm8cCvdU1Gv FxdpZaoktuNanl+qZKe/1LWnaRj9sUPZ+pVw9mun07VQpP5Db8TlRA/E3GMixd/fOxH5 H5Iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.87.4 with SMTP id t4mr9829841igz.76.1368449642932; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.28.161 with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51907B1C.3050300@gmail.com> References: <51907B1C.3050300@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:54:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Karl Fox To: Glen Zorn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bb74dc5bc204dc99022a X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyYxne7iDrBXVcAK4XE565EOrpuPYCMIHgjLAZHaQ2MxqnDWcrHNzPgPwHajXtUb61ob7P Cc: Bernard Aboba , IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 13 May 2013 12:54:04 -0000 --089e0111bb74dc5bc204dc99022a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Likewise. If they don't meet current security standards, any changes we make are certainly not going to be widely implemented. Karl On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > On 05/13/2013 05:55 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > I see no point in creating new PPP security standards at this point. >> > > > I agree. > > > >> > > > On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP > >> standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under > >> the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC. > >> > >> I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to > >> review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving > >> to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards or to > >> obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would > >> require a Charter change. > >> > >> To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, > >> however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the > >> standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group > >> may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is > >> appropriate." > >> > >> I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a > >> brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would > >> be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session > >> request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I > >> never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I > >> can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such > >> a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... > >> > >> Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] ============================= 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 > > ______________________________**_________________ Pppext mailing list > > Pppext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext > > ______________________________**_________________ > Pppext mailing list > Pppext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext > --089e0111bb74dc5bc204dc99022a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Likewise. If they don't meet current security standard= s, any changes we make are certainly not going to be widely implemented.
Karl


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/13/2013 05:55 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

I see no point in creating new =A0PPP security standards at this point.
>
I agree.



>
> On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP
>> standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, unde= r
>> the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC.
>>
>> I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to >> review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving<= br> >> to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards o= r to
>> obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would
>> require a Charter change.
>>
>> To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, >> however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the<= br> >> standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group=
>> may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is
>> appropriate."
>>
>> I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for = a
>> brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would<= br> >> be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session
>> request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I >> never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I >> can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect = such
>> a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... >>
>> Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] =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 =A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street,<= br> >> Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________ Pppext mail= ing
>> list Pppext@i= etf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
> _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing = list
> Pppext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

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

--089e0111bb74dc5bc204dc99022a-- From d3e3e3@gmail.com Tue May 14 23:59:42 2013 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 21DCD21F8FB6 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 qF5hZXeVUV9g for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x241.google.com (mail-ob0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6B621F8F9E for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v19so393977obq.0 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=OXIcdp1NgQqZIwwoEKk/TGbFrlbpETqJWvNPBHAZ350=; b=K8IyEo7iFnqm+g5UTvcydlC6P82ckvYF9wH8wcm6WgTie8G094R34sTqfugF03TNec oN/OyVtFc6he69t4fAmBYmvB4Tn2anueGIS6CrLB+grBQJw5pFbEAB1HMswfP4D8L5JV Sa9Ue7zXFiOtEslwm2DkcIyA98SKsjmwsvep+q5KLdfRZWBR41yjInCVpFi34U4iqA3T jP7vHpblvQ0JBLNOFKaX+QMZUw02Or4oVnGQUTN/r2NMbhrZmg2+V5x4zC3XV9YIM9XH qZvQ6ugdUSiVvyefc272sIrqGmyd2/r5qt5SE72Zimjcj8Vn+MJo0wdaL/cVFVcIE2xm CztA== X-Received: by 10.60.34.69 with SMTP id x5mr18354324oei.110.1368601181014; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.162.233 with HTTP; Tue, 14 May 2013 23:59:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Donald Eastlake Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 02:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: IETF PPP Extensions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 15 May 2013 06:59:42 -0000 Hi, Thanks for the feedback thus far on security. Further feedback welcome. I continue to be inclined against having a WG meeting in Berlin. I may have overstated our AD's interest in advancing PPP standards, Brian is perhaps closer to neutral on the idea. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP standards > track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under the right > circumstances, be done without a new RFC. > > I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to review > the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving to Historic > those which don't meet modern security standards or to obsolete them > with a new version which does... The later would require a Charter > change. > > To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, however, > advance existing specifications to the next level in the standards > track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group may classify > existing specifications as Historic where this is appropriate." > > I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a brief > meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would be a good > time to request it. (I just noticed that the session request tool has > an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I never noticed before. > While WGs have had very short meetings, I can't recall one scheduled > for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such a meeting at the next IETF > Meeting in Berlin is not necessary... > > Thanks, > Donald [PPPEXT Chair] > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com From narten@us.ibm.com Wed May 22 07:26:37 2013 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 D14E321F9346 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 2XE3Nm-a6Vyc for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:29 -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 548F621F92BC for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:26:24 -0400 Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:26:14 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EB76E838F for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4MEPhY2180068 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:43 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4MEPhVN029285 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:43 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-176-249.mts.ibm.com [9.65.176.249]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r4MEPfvs029096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:43 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r4MEPbeZ027627; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400 Message-Id: <201305221425.r4MEPbeZ027627@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Donald Eastlake In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Donald Eastlake message dated "Sun, 12 May 2013 06:01:00 -0400." Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13052214-5806-0000-0000-00002142FB32 Cc: IETF PPP Extensions Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security 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, 22 May 2013 14:26:38 -0000 Given the recent observable history of this group, I'm skeptical that it has energy to do anything. Advancing stuff up the Standards Track is always a worthy goal, and no doubt our newest AD would prefer WGs doing something rather than nothing, but is it really worth the effort? Personally, I don't see the need for this WG anymore. It was left chartered back when I was AD (even though it had no real work left to do even then) for the specific reason that the IETF was still getting PPP (and PPPoE) related drafts sent to the RFC editor that needed review and needed a WG to say "the WG doesn't want to do that". Those days seem long gone now... Thomas