Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Karl Fox <karl@lithik.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <karl@lithik.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 9632E21F95E5 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 OQbN7RHBy1Yh for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B1421F9403 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id aq17so12254908iec.15 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ScE8h1pUfOTF3tfGXQdC6hNBPnG/6oyZ4ns7A5W99tI=; b=e54NMWcnWeTlbrIGwtAnYtGDZYQiNM+DTiuORDT/+wsEhf0kh5oVH1LT/P7Pp/6x8x NQxyFKNDuE4Aih9ZeBpAnLF5XnM1xbeLPzpmG9zcsF2lB+/bzSzKkqF4WK8ysz0uefk6 RJnRw9bcZKYE3WvVq1SsI5cvixlbTKGNrcbshduae1jKh5pHZfkwx/G16+++uHtaGtEl u5vnLAi7lmFNicwG+ef8ln37l3WDd/HFJNieQB5TWDNHr63XRaVN23R56Pm8cCvdU1Gv FxdpZaoktuNanl+qZKe/1LWnaRj9sUPZ+pVw9mun07VQpP5Db8TlRA/E3GMixd/fOxH5 H5Iw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.87.4 with SMTP id t4mr9829841igz.76.1368449642932; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.28.161 with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51907B1C.3050300@gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEFseyZrSivPZ_N-DZVv4uMpeRHiu3iofzgaXpnq3OXe2Q@mail.gmail.com> <BLU404-EAS227A323E2D1BB467B6AB5CE93A70@phx.gbl> <51907B1C.3050300@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:54:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKRY2Yw8kYce-ZgxnT+mrvBp4AqhBZ+WP6+FRQsLpQCGGSoL8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Karl Fox <karl@lithik.com>
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bb74dc5bc204dc99022a
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyYxne7iDrBXVcAK4XE565EOrpuPYCMIHgjLAZHaQ2MxqnDWcrHNzPgPwHajXtUb61ob7P
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:54:04 -0000

Likewise. If they don't meet current security standards, any changes we
make are certainly not going to be widely implemented.

Karl


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/13/2013 05:55 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>  I see no point in creating new  PPP security standards at this point.
>>
> >
> I agree.
>
>
>
>>  >
> > On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP
> >> standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under
> >> the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC.
> >>
> >> I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to
> >> review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving
> >> to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards or to
> >> obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would
> >> require a Charter change.
> >>
> >> To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may,
> >> however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the
> >> standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group
> >> may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is
> >> appropriate."
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a
> >> brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would
> >> be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session
> >> request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I
> >> never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I
> >> can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such
> >> a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary...
> >>
> >> Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] ============================= Donald
> >> E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street,
> >> Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com
> >> ______________________________**_________________ Pppext mailing
> >> list Pppext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
> > ______________________________**_________________ Pppext mailing list
> > Pppext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Pppext mailing list
> Pppext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
>