Hi David, Thank you again for the re-review.
Dan Romascanu had flagged the "MUST implement" reference to draft-ietf-pana-snmp I-D (a dead draft). In consultation with Dan and Mark Townsley, we agreed to remove that requirement. Just to recap how we ended up removing that requirement (from two of my e-mails): "The WG was originally scoped to work only on the PaC-to-PAA protocol (PANA). Later the WG was asked by our previous AD to also define at least one protocol for the PAA-to-EP leg. We ended up embarking on that work to define a complete picture. Irrespective of the EAP peer (e.g., PaC) to authenticator (e.g., PAA) protocol (e.g., PANA, PKMv2, IEEE 802.1X, HRPD), there is need for an authenticator to enforcement point protocol when the two are separated. Today there are numerous protocols used for that (e.g., R6 in WiMAX, CAPWAP in WiFi, Rp in 3GPP2, and IETF's upcoming ANCP in DSL). Defining an architecture-neutral protocol is a good task, but I'd say it's better scoped as a work item for a separate WG. For that reason, I'm leaning towards putting that work aside for PANA WG. If and when IETF decides to tackle generic authenticator to enforcement point protocol, draft-ietf-pana-snmp can be a useful starting point." And "According to our framework, as illustrated [Fig 1. in fwk], PANA is part of a larger picture that includes other protocols running between various entities. While the core protocol work of PANA WG is running between PaC and PAA, we are also showing protocols between PAA-to-AS, PAA-to-EP, and PaC-to-EP. The PaC-to-EP protocol is very much access technology specific. E.g., PKMv2 in WiMAX, 802.1X 4-way handshake in WiFi, etc. We list them informatively. The PAA-to-EP protocol is also architecture specific. WiMAX uses R6, some WiFis uses CAPWAP, some ADSL would be using ANCP, etc. I think what we can do is, like we did for the PaC-to-EP protocols, we can informatively list the protocols (excluding SNMP) that are used for the PAA-to-EP leg." Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pana-framework-10.txt > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-pana-framework-10.txt > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: September , 2007 > IETF Telechat Date: September 20, 2007 > > Summary: > > This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described > in the review. > > Comments: > > The items identified in the Gen-ART review of the -08 version > of this draft have been addressed in the -09 version. They > are still ok in the -10 version. > > The one significant change I noticed between -09 and -10 is > removal of the "MUST implement" requirement for SNMP between > the PAA and EP when these two entities are separated. This > requirement has not been replaced. > > Whether the should be replaced is the one and only "open issue" > in this review. I'm not sure whether the requirement needs to > be replaced, but I am sure that the IESG should discuss whether > it ought to be replaced, and if so by a requirement for what > protocol, ANCP? I would be comfortable with a conclusion that > not having requirement is appropriate, but want to ensure that > this is done as a conscious decision and not by default. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
