headers
Donald Eastlake | 12 May 2013 12:01
Picon

Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
johnsonhammond1 | 27 Apr 2013 19:27
Favicon

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.

We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware

Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a 
payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the 
fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman 
of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from 
WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. 

We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts 
to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP.  DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped 
indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Donald Eastlake | 8 May 2012 23:53
Picon

Errata classification

Hi,

The following errata sounds reasonable but could people give me their opinion?

    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1924

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Donald Eastlake | 27 Sep 2011 21:31
Picon

Re: Future of the PPP WG

There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan.

Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.
>
> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
> year.
>
> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
> security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
> declared historic.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Jacni Qin | 13 Sep 2011 05:53
Picon

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Hi Donald,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.

Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
year.

In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
declared historic.

My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
suggestions and comments on all this.

Besides security, there are also other efforts and active documents, such as,
draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-08
draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd-00
draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions

And for example, we are working revision of "draft-hu-pppext-ipv6cp-extensions" to report
the progress (e.g., the implementations, trials in pratical networks) by now.


One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
for or against such a meeting.

I'll be there if there is one.


Cheers,
Jacni
 

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Narten | 10 Sep 2011 03:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation continues
> unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next year.

Care to elaborate on this? Or did I miss something?

> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
> security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
> declared historic.

> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
> suggestions and comments on all this.

Is there any evidence that the participants on this list have *any*
(and I do mean *any*) energy to do any such work? And would anyone
even care? (By that, are there still folk doing PPP implementations
that would read such documents?)

This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic
given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the
charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter
how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal
world).

> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
> for or against such a meeting.

If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I see
no evidence that such time would be well spent.

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Glen Zorn | 9 Sep 2011 13:33
Picon

Re: Future of the PPP WG

On 9/9/2011 5:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.

Thanks for mentioning it!

> 
> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
> year.
> 
> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
> security guidelines. 

Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you
consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is
how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)?

> I believe that there should be an update of PPP
> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
> declared historic.

Do you have a list of said RFCs?

> 
> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
> suggestions and comments on all this.
> 
> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
> for or against such a meeting.

I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Donald Eastlake | 9 Sep 2011 00:24
Picon

Future of the PPP WG

Hi,

In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.

Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
year.

In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
declared historic.

My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
suggestions and comments on all this.

One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
for or against such a meeting.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Freedman | 25 Jul 2011 19:43

FW: New Version Notification for draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd-00.txt

As per abstract, an alternative to DHCP INFORM bootstrapping of 6RD
(RFC5969)

The authors suggest that use of this option is configured by such
mechanisms as 
[draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-02] which has just finished
softwires wg last call.

Dave.

On 25/07/2011 12:24, "internet-drafts <at> ietf.org" <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
wrote:

>A new version of I-D, draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd-00.txt has been
>successfully submitted by David Freedman and posted to the IETF
>repository.
>
>Filename:	 draft-freedman-pppext-ipv6-6rd
>Revision:	 00
>Title:		 IPv6 6RD IPCP configuration option for PPP
>Creation date:	 2011-07-25
>WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>Number of pages: 11
>
>Abstract:
>   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) (RFC1661) provides a standard
>   method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point
>   links.  PPP defines an extensible Link Control Protocol and a family
>   of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing and configuring
>   different network-layer protocols.
>
>   This document extends the NCP for establishing and configuring the
>   Internet Protocol over PPP (RFC1332), defining the negotiation of 6RD
>   (RFC5969) Border Relay (BR) addresses.  While the authors believe one
>   could use DHCP INFORM (RFC2131) to obtain the necessary 6RD
>   parameters, this is simply an alternative which allows reuse of an
>   existing PPP-based configuration infrastructure.
>
>                  
>        
>
>
>The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
William Allen Simpson | 25 Jul 2011 17:11
Picon

Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-08.txt

Preparing to watch some IETF meetings, I belatedly noticed this.  Because
it is now an independent submission, it wasn't sent to the pppext list.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-08.txt
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:07:01 -0700
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol
	Author(s)       : James Carlson
                           Donald Eastlake
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-08.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2011-06-14

    The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control Protocol
    (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multi-protocol traffic
    over point-to-point links.  This document describes PPP support for
    the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
    allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
    PPP links.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-08.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-08.txt
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
internet-drafts | 3 Jun 2011 21:45
Picon
Favicon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol
	Author(s)       : James Carlson
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-07.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2011-06-03

   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control Protocol
   (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multi-protocol traffic
   over point-to-point links.  This document describes PPP support for
   Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
   allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
   PPP links.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-07.txt
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane