Re: call for discussion on draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-03.txt

> I wonder what the results would be if the other discovery and signalling
> drafts defined by PPVPN so far were evaluated using a "Protocol Abuse
> Rating Scale (PARSE)"? I suspect that most of them (if not all) would
> also receive 2's and 3's.

Please note that I do not consider use of RADIUS to authenticate and
configure (PP)VPNs to constitute protocol abuse.  RFC 2868 describes the
use of RADIUS to configure and authenticate VPNs.  So such a use is well
established.  My issues were with other parts of the proposal, such as
modifying RFC 2486, using Interim Accounting as a failure detection
mechanism, and attempting to do dynamic re-authorization in a manner not
supported within draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization-20.txt.  I'd
hope that discussion in this forum will focus on figuring out how to
meet the requirements given existing facilities (RFC 2865-2869 + 3162,
2869bis, draft-congdon and draft-chiba).

>I hope this is not true, but if you think it is it would be helpful to
>do that evaluation, cause we would need it.

If you really think that completed specifications in this WG are unlikely
to work reliably or securely in practice (that's a "2") or could be done
better using an alternative mechanism (that's a "3") then I'd certainly
hope that the problems will be identified and fixed *prior* to sending
them off to the IESG.  Otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised to receiving
the predictable response -- "fix it".