gmane.ietf.pppext

Re: Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Donald Eastlake — 2013-05-15T06:59:20

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< at >gmail.com


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3< at >gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Karl Fox — 2013-05-13T12:54:02

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 <glenzorn< at >gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Glen Zorn — 2013-05-13T05:33:16

 >
I agree.

 >
 > On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3< at >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, 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 sor

Re: Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Bernard Aboba — 2013-05-12T22:55:38

I see no point in creating new PPP security standards at this point. 

On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3< at >gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Donald Eastlake — 2013-05-12T10:01:00

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.
Wh

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

2013-04-27T17:27:59

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science


We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.


We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware


Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without

Re: Errata classification

Donald Eastlake — 2012-05-09T13:44:31

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


On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:53 AM, James Carlson <carlsonj< at >workingcode.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Errata classification

James Carlson — 2012-05-09T10:53:09

At Sun, I worked on an implementation of RFC 2759, and verified the
resulting compatibility with Microsoft RAS.  The erratum is correct.
The password is indeed hashed using UTF-16-LE encoding.  (I suspect, but
cannot prove, that it was originally defined on NT using UCS-2-LE rather
than UTF-16-LE.  But the distinction almost certainly doesn't matter.)

Errata classification

Donald Eastlake — 2012-05-08T21:53:22

Hi,

The following errata sounds reasonable but could people give me their opinion?

    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1924

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3< at >gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake — 2011-10-03T04:30:05

Hi Bill,

I don't think your personal opinion of Vernon Schryver is relevant or
appropriate to be posted here.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3< at >gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake — 2011-10-03T04:29:35

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Vernon Schryver <vjs< at >rhyolite.com> wrote:

Actually, you can't make IANA Consideration criteria for assignment
dependent on approval by a Working Group because IETF Working Groups
are considered transient entities, notwithstanding that some WGs have
been around for a long time.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3< at >gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

William Allen Simpson — 2011-10-02T11:14:26

It _was_ an odd thing for an individual submission, but I wasn't too
worried about it, as it was proposed in a draft sent to the list.

I went back and looked at my list archives, and found that I'd not even
ever read half the messages about it.  It came out of a series of posts on
the Subject: Re: Reigning in "bad" extensions to PPP.

At the time, I did read the first few messages with each new Subject line:
    proposed draft IANA Considerations
    I-D ACTION:draft-schryver-pppext-iana-00.txt
    IANA PPP considerations
    IANA Considerations for PPP to Proposed Standard

Again, what needs to be changed?


I've an informal personal rule going back to the early '90s against
responding to Schryver's usual provocative rants, and had kill filed him
for some years.  I'd say more of a troll than diabolical.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Glen Zorn — 2011-10-02T06:44:58


You're not alone, Bill: not much attention was called to it (at least in
pppext).  It was an individual submission (kind of ironic, considering
that the evil it purports to fix is the lack of WG review).  IIRC, I was
unaware of its existence until the announcement of its publication.


Not idiotic at all; the author is not an idiot.  Diabolical, maybe, but
not idiotic.

...
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

William Allen Simpson — 2011-09-29T11:18:21

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.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Vernon Schryver — 2011-09-28T13:48:04


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< at >rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

James Carlson — 2011-09-28T12:32:18

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.

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Mark Townsley — 2011-09-28T06:37:26

On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:


And a "get-together" of PPP old-far^H^H^Htimers?

- Mark


_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Glen Zorn — 2011-09-28T04:20:04

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.

...
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake — 2011-09-27T19:31:49

There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan.

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< at >gmail.com

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3< at >gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Jacni Qin — 2011-09-13T03:55:01

hi,

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn< at >gmail.com> wrote:

+1


Cheers,
Jacni


_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Jacni Qin — 2011-09-13T03:54:47

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Ignacio Goyret <
i.goyret< at >alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

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


Cheers,
Jacni


_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext