IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] perpass: what next?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926BC1A6F29 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 JTZIZPCMqjxQ for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3923B1A1BB8 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (135.sub-70-214-5.myvzw.com [70.214.5.135]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8822F2380423; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
References: <5530EEAB.5050601@cs.tcd.ie> <25042.1429279352@sandelman.ca> <5541D7DD.9010504@restena.lu> <30883.1430401937@sandelman.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <30883.1430401937@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <03F4B569-1339-4046-9141-2116486E93B7@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B410)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:58:11 -0400
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/gfZIEBy8C4gVunMEgB4Z_IBNn_4>
Cc: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "perpass@ietf.org" <perpass@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [perpass] perpass: what next?
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:58:59 -0000

On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> I would say yes. I was going to ask if there were implementations, and you
> clearly have some... Would there be value to deploy this at IETF meeting
> networks?

That would certainly be interesting. I definitely agree with Stefan's main point here that 802.1x is too difficult. There is no common language or set of operational assumptions shared between different client implementations, so it's impossible to carry what one has learned about configuring it in one context to another.  I would like to see work on this happen somewhere in the IETF.

One of the IT folks at my office yesterday was complaining about how hard it is to configure, and also the lack of widespread 802.11w support in clients and servers (although this particular issue is something we may not be able to do anything about). This conversation happened because I was trying to get a chromebook on our office network for the first time and not only was the UI completely different than the apple UI, when it failed there was no way to figure out from the error message why it had.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email