Subject: [Pana] Issue 150 Closure

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:46:28 -0600

Issue 150 has been discussed over the ML. The proposal to add the
capability to mandate separate authentication is not warranted at this
time as the complexity created is not worth the benefit.

Hence the issue will be closed with the original resolution posted in
the message:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pana/current/msg01218.html

-Basavaraj

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:07:59 -0500

I'll reflect the original resolution to the manuscript, except for the
following sentence:

"
The PaC may also respond with the S-flag not set which implies the PaC
has chosen to authenticate with either the NAP or the ISP only.
"

Taking the following comment from Alper (please see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pana/current/msg01235.html):

   I think this should be "ISP only" (not "NAP or ISP"). This is the
   default mode of operation in access networks today.

The sentence should be changed to:

"
The PaC may also respond with the S-flag not set which implies the PaC
has chosen to authenticate with the ISP only.
"

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba