IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Implementation Analysis: strong preference for PCP-specific approach

Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467E821F86AD for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VhSClXXm27sT for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB40221F856D for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadz3 with SMTP id z3so868361qad.10 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=1/6ZhdZOHELqMNp8eNOiKj23HJggnLpPUiPoKMYbcOw=; b=UDnf2XbNz525KSMpqaYy4ipjPX9b+/ur1IqhhevfJpUBAgKsn0f/53Mb/6flcdQ3Oo 2pvHN0AkZHkerFAQEYv9nN5/2a82x1vWpAYziw6rX/vkX3t16KUkBoXMEZbqKvIkhI7D VjALGelgZTGAedFdJIn/KKedRzDFiB6LcFsLKyWJVhuMGmtvY7BscWrRx0A0lfqg5+ot 6YU0MONRjoPyKYpGIaxx2z5+1CnhSO/js0Rcd3YD/v1zuI6tyxh9ioJUWiFXo1+9x8ow eBbi1AqwprMA/OE1COFNWppvF2lS9B2RDB8Sz68FKFRZvLr/xsGsKagdZ19hkjR7CWhS Pqhw==
Received: by 10.224.78.197 with SMTP id m5mr4966403qak.36.1348049470244; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lilac-too.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [71.184.79.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fl3sm3424287qab.3.2012.09.19.03.11.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <74FC8E41-02D8-4BFC-A15F-035FA328DDC1@yegin.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:11:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <70154AB6-F7B5-47B0-B721-811EA5DF9926@lilacglade.org>
References: <tslipbdzzwy.fsf@mit.edu> <74FC8E41-02D8-4BFC-A15F-035FA328DDC1@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] Implementation Analysis: strong preference for PCP-specific approach
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:11 -0000

Hi Alper,

On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> Yep, they are implementing "EAP lower layers". "EAP-over-UDP/PCP" is an EAP lower-layer and it'll have the same thing (once people realize it's more than defining a EAP container to qualify as a "working" and "compliant" EAP lower layer).

You have mentioned this several times, but you haven't provided any specifics.  What do you think is missing from the PCP-specific approach, as document, that would need to be added to make it a "working" and "compliant" EAP lower layer?  Is there an RFC that specifies the requirements that the PCP-Specific approach is failing to meet? 

Margaret

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email