[drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

"PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz@att.com> Mon, 27 July 2009 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ppfautz@att.com>
X-Original-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06F23A6AD5 for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i0FhU9EuSTX0 for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD60428C0EC for <drinks@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: ppfautz@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1248713152!35705987!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 30200 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2009 16:45:52 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Jul 2009 16:45:52 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6RGjpCe009574 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:45:51 -0400
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.15]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6RGjnux009544 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:45:49 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA0ED9.B231B902"
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:45:49 -0400
Message-ID: <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B01F18918@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comment on today's drinks discussion
Thread-Index: AcoO2bJ+NAGUY74URde2rAIW8CFO0w==
From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <ppfautz@att.com>
To: <drinks@ietf.org>
Subject: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:45:53 -0000

I've been away from the design group for a while since the focus seemed
to shift more to lower level design issues outside of my bailiwick but I
came away from today's IETF discussion with an uncomfortable feeling
about where the drinks effort is heading.
One the one hand I feel that some of the issues we agreed to set aside
to narrow scope (LUF/LRF) are coming back to haunt us and on the other
that the effort is straining as Otmar suggests to accommodate more and
more complexity that should, perhaps be handled elsewhere. Perhaps these
are different sides of the same coin. 
I for one have concerns about how useful the resulting protocol is
likely to be, at least for my company's likely applications.
 
 
Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962