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

William Allen Simpson <> Sun, 09 June 2013 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72FE21F8F7A for <>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 01:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hk1YtEEIYy3n for <>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 01:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5853C21F8F4D for <>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 01:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id jz10so4144584veb.3 for <>; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=myFK8AZk0T4CLDguQ1ZsnjaCjWijqnVvopG9VdGIxOg=; b=fWpxqPtbcIctKoX2yGPBqZYIgCuQNGDpn/jT+pr1if0D6vtaMptaLQDIh+OfFEe/3E T7XxyG5hcZc63OTMvT+WXSsTSsUxETGe7i5WFTZpjzslBeH1GrEnjnxgWche96pjHn/5 DsctRemAN7WA/7IzHZlpd/rZhwNchA+fHi0SSHwJ02dK2BETdZGp4DYryvTz3hML+p9Q HFLzFccoU57FO4ApS0p+2Tipin2NAcnxMsT7WWiZ4t9QROHa/iuMcjCzwsOFZ6yoBWgD NRtkQrizzmcRF5Q1UTeU786/Lzl0Ix2yIMh7cHJ0ZW1oHGPnO377YPTINO+O09NyETc0 IR3g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id uf1mr2872624vec.57.1370768013296; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wastrel.home.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s9sm5756857vdh.4.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 04:53:30 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:53:36 -0000

On 5/15/13 2:59 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback thus far on security. Further feedback welcome.
Missed this short discussion.  Here's my belated feedback.

Some years ago, we had quite a bit of interest in updating the
security protocols.  But the charter was changed to disallow it.

Somewhere, I had a key establishment draft sitting around.  And
there was some significant interest in securing PoS -- specifically
with a lightweight stream cypher like ARC4.  But this was all some
time ago.

The question of the day would be: how much PoS is there out there
now -- and would the issue of the day (surveillance) be enough
motivation for vendors to add it?

Don's a lot more in touch with vendors than I am these days.  But
I'd be willing be bet China would be interested....

> I may have overstated our AD's interest in advancing PPP standards,
> Brian is perhaps closer to neutral on the idea.
As I've mentioned before, most simply need an implementation table
in order to advance.  There really haven't been any changes in years.

The biggest lack of advancement was IPv4.  McGregor disappeared and
the whole thing needed an upgrade with comments from the WG mailing
list.  Folks just tested against existing implementations and made
things work over time.

But the WG mailing list isn't online any more.  So any newer
implementation would likely have troubles.  That's probably more
important than merely updating document status.  Is there any chance
to get the old UCDavis and Merit archives back online?