IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870351B27A3 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OTNWnEv2vwuN for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5A21A036B for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E48E1B84C9 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DE9190060; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.238.103) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:38:07 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C97C631B-1C45-4157-84F3-F049061F51C4@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:04 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6DE67E84-6727-4693-997F-A5D6B0094C3C@nominum.com>
References: <CFC8AC41.41E79%alissa@cooperw.in> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6287695E1@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300396C7@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <63BA73CC-B475-4AD7-9EC3-5D6716060A8D@netapp.com> <C97C631B-1C45-4157-84F3-F049061F51C4@nominum.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.103]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/4ihTEOxePyFYvC6MKZuz94quqCA
Cc: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:38:10 -0000

On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> Lars, the end user definitely has a trust relationship with the ISP from whom they purchase service.   Typically they have a password that works for authentication, but additionally it's common practice to use the fact that a device is connected over a particular circuit as proof that the person using the device is allowed to use the services the ISP provides.   So I am puzzled as to why this problem seems intractable to you.
> 
> As to which area ought to do this, that's obviously an open issue, since we don't even have a BoF yet.   This would certainly be a cross-area issue if the not-yet-existent working group finds that they cannot use existing technology to solve the problem.

This was a lack-of-coffee error.   I was commenting about something Lars said in a completely different context about a completely different proposal.   Please disregard what I said above.   Sorry for the resulting confusion.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email