Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821FC21F8573 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.528, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3Tbs7qkj-Vf for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBB121F85B8 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so3011686fxe.31 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7I7DqVDyzZ1+8XzJ4UdaXIN3LPBcEp3Ooi9ujuQZEpE=; b=ZFuzH/C9zLqlq1YB5G7BJHdRQXS+s4FzXl3oLW5JEYud0ltTypQV7N5jTr/VFjcnGh /ZAOcxep3K1aBI8WfhvNXf0cwikbLLJlQJ6+i2E/4Eg0KdWA6QcR29eWsMri9Dz/Ur/N MAQREl9F8+DguqpdyYnIWo7r2zMSA7EJE1UBI=
Received: by 10.223.101.2 with SMTP id a2mr935823fao.2.1315592322408; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.6.105 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com> <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:18:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGAcFuqwUpyUz3Vd6AuZZui-q2wADdO8mNmrAXndUyCBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:16:49 -0000

Hi Glen,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 5:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.
>
> Thanks for mentioning it!
>
>>
>> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
>> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
>> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
>> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
>> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
>> year.
>>
>> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
>> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
>> security guidelines.
>
> Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you
> consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is
> how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)?

I should think the PPPEXT WG would decided which guidelines, subject
to the constrains of getting documents through the IETF process :-)

>> I believe that there should be an update of PPP
>> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
>> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
>> declared historic.
>
> Do you have a list of said RFCs?

I don't think it is complete but how about the following to start with:

"The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)",
               RFC 1968, June 1996.
"PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
               Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
"The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE)", RFC 2420, September 1998.

>> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
>> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
>> suggestions and comments on all this.
>>
>> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
>> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
>> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
>> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
>> for or against such a meeting.
>
> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.

Unless there is significant support, I won't try to have a physical meeting.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com