I believe if we move 'quickly' in this WG we will be able to meet
interoperability goals to certain extent atleast. The bottom-line is
this technology is already being deployed by different vendors in
academia and enterprises. The question is should IETF get involved in
standardizing this or leave it to the individual vendors. I believe the
IETF should and that standardization will certainly help the community,
if we can move fast enough.
The recent email by Jari Arkko to standardize some of the EAP methods
which are being used and deployed today but no RFCs exist for them, is
certainly a step in the right direction.
My 2 cents,
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Frank Yeh Jr
Cc: Ted Hardie; nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
"Frank" == Frank Yeh <fyeh(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Frank> Standardized VS vendor-specific attributes is not something
that needs to be
Frank> solved today. Solutions can start with vendor-specific and
migrate toward a
Frank> standard, if one develops, without changing the protocol. The
Frank> should not preclude the addition of standardized attributes.
Frank> specification is like an alphabet, attributes are like
vocabulary. You can add
Frank> new words without changing the letters.
One of the things coming out of the most recent BOF was a strong
desire for PA-level interoperability. That can be accomplished
through standardized attributes or vendor-specific attributes that are
sufficiently well documented (and not subject to patents) that third
parties can implement collectors or analysis tools that interoperate
with the vendor tools for the vendor attributes.
Will we be able to meet these interoperability goals? Why or why not?
Nea mailing list
Ietf mailing list