I have no doubt that an implementation can be made to work, when one has
control of all the layers. The question is whether PANA bootstrap will
work when all that is supplied is a PANA layer that must operate above
an existing, presumably standards compliant, 802.1X/802.11i
implementation. When one can bypass a restriction of 802.11i (which
says to drop non-802.1X frames on the uncontrolled port), then PANA
bootstrap is possible.
However, what authority has PANA to change a standard developed in an
entirely different standards organization?
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper(_dot_)yegin(_at_)yegin(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:19 AM
To: 'Yoshihiro Ohba'; 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-pana-framework-06
We (Samsung) have an implementation as well.
Alper
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba(_at_)tari(_dot_)toshiba(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:02 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pana-framework-06
If implementability of the specification is an issue, my company has
an implementation of bootstrapping 802.11i PSK mode based on running
PANA over Uncontrolled Port. The implementation works without
modifying a WiFi hardware or its firmware. We have a plan to publish
the source code of the implementation in Open Diameter project.
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:45:25AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba
<yohba(_at_)tari(_dot_)toshiba(_dot_)com> writes:
e email discussion over
Yoshihiro> the EAP mailing list quoted below, I had a short
Yoshihiro> conversation on this issue with Jesse Walker during
Yoshihiro> IEEE 802 interim meeting in January in order to
Yoshihiro> follow-up the email discussion and understand the
input
Yoshihiro> from Jesse more. As far as I understand, he seemed
to
Yoshihiro> agree on this possible interpretation while he
Yoshihiro> mentioned that there is no existing 802.11i
Yoshihiro> implementation that uses 802.1X Uncontrolled Port for
Yoshihiro> non-802.1X frame exchange, but I may be still
Yoshihiro> misunderstanding something. Also, for the sake of
Yoshihiro> completeness of the email discussion over the EAP
Yoshihiro> mailing list, the following email that I sent in
Yoshihiro> response to msg03872 should be quoted as well:
Yoshihiro>
http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/msg03879.html.]
So, the implementability of our specifications is a significant
concern. If we do not expect there to be environments in which a
feature of our spec will be implementable, then we should remove
that
feature.
Implementability is sufficiently important that RFC 2026 explicitly
gives the IESG the ability to request an implementation report even
for publication at proposed standard when it has questions about
whether a particular feature can be implemented interoperably.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf