Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com> Sun, 11 September 2011 14:21 UTC
Return-Path: <vjs@rhyolite.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 4981721F849B for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7C20uEbMfad1 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7054E21F846C for <pppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8BEMvi5006794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pppext@ietf.org> env-from <vjs@rhyolite.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:58 GMT
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8BEMtnS006793 for pppext@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:55 GMT
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:22:55 +0000
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <201109111422.p8BEMtnS006793@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: pppext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4E6C5F8C.6020605@gmail.com>
X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist
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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:21:18 -0000
> From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> > > http://www.freesound.org/people/Jlew/sounds/16475/ > > Well, this is all good fun, in a US/Euro-centric kind of way, but it > would be good to remember that in a very large part of the world our > "theme song" is a still a vital part of the Internet & is likely to > remain so for a considerable period of time. This email will make the > first hop of its journey over (the much maligned) PPPoE, for example; > not everybody lives in advanced countries such as S. Korea (the > connectivity of which should make both the French and Americans hang > their heads in shame). In short, PPP is far from obsolete. I don't think the thrust of that claim is entirely accurate. Do people outside advanced countries use dialup modems or wireless? Have you noticed the lack of modems and serial ports on modern portable computers? That you can still buy a USB modem doesn't make PPP less obsolete than floppy disks. Last month I bought a USB modem so that I can dial with my new portable, but that is mostly sign of my failure to move with the times. The salesman wasn't clear about what I wanted, and I didn't find a lot of choices. Somewhere I also have a USB floppy drive. How would reissuing PPP RFCs with new security boilerplate help anyone except the authors of the new RFCs? What would people working on PPP code do differently if the PPP RFCs had modern security sections? How many people are working on implementations of PPPoE or any other flavor of PPP code? If moving the never deployed PPP RFCs to Historic and reissuing the rest with new security sections were all that would happen, it would be only a dubious effort. But there would be irresistible pressures to to fix CHAP, MP, and even IPCP. The replacements, delivered after years of wrangling (and no implementations), would be as ill considered as PAP, PPPoE, and the recently proposed IS-IS security fix. If against all likelihood they were eventually deployed, they'd be discovered to be as insecure as many of the wireless security schemes and cause interoperabilty problems as the PPPoE MTU still does. The primary defense against those "improvements" would the fact that no one (especially not the new RFC authors) would implement them and fewer would deploy them. Once upon a time, the IETF produced protocols to fill clear and present user needs and demands. Ostensibly fixing PPP with new security words is the sort of idle hands standards committee exercise that destroyed the ISO OSI protocol suite. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Mark Townsley
- [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Mark Townsley
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG William Allen Simpson
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Thomas Narten
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Mark Townsley
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Mark Townsley
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Ignacio Goyret
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG William Allen Simpson
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Jacni Qin
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Jacni Qin
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Jacni Qin
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Jacni Qin
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Mark Townsley
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG James Carlson
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG William Allen Simpson
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Glen Zorn
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG William Allen Simpson
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG Donald Eastlake