[Pana] IESG Review of protocol and framework documents

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

PANA Folks,

Yesterday, the IESG balloted draft-ietf-pana-pana-17.txt (Proposed 
Standard) and draft-ietf-pana-framework-09.txt (Informational RFC). 
While there are a handful of DISCUSS positions that we need to work 
through, all of you who worked hard on this revision should be 
commended. In particular, a rare word of praise from Sam Hartman:

"[2007-06-21] First, I'd like to compliment Mark and the PANA working 
group on the
excellent work they have done over the last year.  I fully expected to
be unable to support publication of PANA when it came to the IESG.
While I do have some blocking comments, I think they are easy to
resolve and expect to be able to remove my discuss when that happens.
What an excellent job making PANA easier to understand and removing
complexity."

I would like to especially thank Yoshi, Alper, Raj and Jari for all of 
their hard work and perseverance, and the WG for their patience during 
this process.

But there is still a final hurdle to leap. The IESG ballot (one ballot 
for both documents) detail is here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1723&filename=draft-ietf-pana-framework

There are 3 Discuss positions which need to move to Yes or No-Obj for 
the document to pass. If any one moves to Abstain, then the document 
will be in danger of not passing as there are a number of "open 
positions" here (all documents require 1 Yes and 2/3 of IESG members 
voting Yes or No-Obj).

Dan is asking about SNMP. I understand that we have gone in circles with 
respect to whether SNMP is required to be implemented or not, and it 
looks like the result was confusing to Dan. We either need to revive the 
SNMP document, or kill it off completely in the WG and in these specs.

Magnus has concerns about languages. I remember a review we did with the 
ltru chairs which perhaps we never fully closed the loop on, please 
contact Martin Duerst [e-mail] and Magnus directly to sort 
this out.

Sam seems most concerned about:
- Versioning
- IP address reconfig
- underlying link security
- which messages need an AUTH attribute and which do not, explicitly
- new hash algorithm migration
- discussion in the security considerations, moving some "requirements" 
to "tradeoffs"

I think all of these can be resolved with some discussion and one more 
revision on the text, as such I have moved the documents to Revised ID 
Needed. Once we have a new version which alleviates the concerns listed 
here and the ADs have changed their position to Yes or No-Obj, the 
documents will be approved.

- Mark










_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana