RE: comments on draft-gaonkar-radext-erp-attrs-00

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Narayanan, Vidya <mailto:vidyan@qualcomm.com> allegedly scribbled on
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:59 PM:

>> ...
>> 
>>> Not sure I understand.  It is very much feasible to provide the
>>> identity (of the domain or the HOKEY server) to the peer via the
>>> lower layer.
>> 
>> OK, cool.  Please provide a list of 1) all target lower layers and b)
>> how, precisely this identity is provided to the peer _now_.
>> 
> 
> The point I was making was that evolving link layers can certainly
> include this functionality.  

If the people evolving those link layers are a) paying any attention at
all to what we're doing, b) are as willing as we seem to be to depend
upon massive layer violations to get things going and c) actually know
what the identity is to be in all cases.  For example, I can't for the
life of me imagine why L2 would know or care about a specific hostname
(which after all is an L6 identifier).  In any case, this is the
Internet Engineering Task Force, not the Every Lame Transport on the
Planet Engineering Task Force; we should do our own engineering in a way
that our protocols are (as much as possible) independent of other
folks'.  This appears to me to be one of the cases where any reliance on
a lower layer not under our control is not just unnecessary but
detrimental.

...

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>