gmane.ietf.pppext

Re: Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Thomas Narten — 2013-05-22T14:25:37

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

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

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

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

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 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a 
payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the 
fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman 
of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from 
WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. 


We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts 
to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP.  DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped 
indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See 
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the 
conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of
http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers 
about WORLDCOMP. 


The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific
to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than 
having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever!


Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, 
using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing 
out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published 
in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) 
who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using 
fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences
to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to 
threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). 
That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published 
at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. 


Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has 
refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image 
being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 
is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. 


The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee 
members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact 
details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! 

Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for 
all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal 
the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many 
papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at 
the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 


Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop 
this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. 


We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities 
http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com   Search Google using the 
keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.

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

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