Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5611A02A4 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:06:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aWFtnP92aTZ for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EE71A0048 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 21B122DC151; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:06:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id F346135C06A; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:06:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:06:52 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:06:51 +0100
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04
Thread-Index: Ac8V+XYFwCZwUiErRFWZJpB8oQYf6AAhhSfg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255636@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428DACF@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428DACF@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F46255636PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.1.21.62115
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:06:57 -0000

Hi Tiru,

I wasn't in the meeting, but the minutes do not mention any objection to the proposal made in the prez: see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/minutes?item=minutes-88-pcp.html.

Cheers,
Med

De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
Envoyé : lundi 20 janvier 2014 17:06
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Dan Wing (dwing); Reinaldo Penno (repenno); pcp@ietf.org
Objet : RE: Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04

Ok, If that's the case - Is there consensus that PCP auth draft will address the below comments to explain the usage of PCP proxy when auth is used ?

Best Regards,
-Tiru.
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM
To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Cc: Dan Wing (dwing); Reinaldo Penno (repenno); pcp@ietf.org<mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04

Hi Tiru,

Thanks for the comments.

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med

De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
Envoyé : lundi 20 janvier 2014 13:28
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Dan Wing (dwing); Reinaldo Penno (repenno); pcp@ietf.org<mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
Objet : Review of draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-04

Hi Med,

Comments:

a)
If PCP authentication is used, Is there a need to still use THIRD_PARTY option for the use case "No NAT is Co-located with the PCP Proxy"  in section 6 of the draft ?
[Med] THIRD_PARTY option is needed even if no NAT is co-located with the PCP Proxy (e.g., DS-Lite context). For other contexts than DS-Lite, if the source IP address is not altered by the PCP proxy, the proxy has to inspect all incoming packets to find out pcp ones and therefore enforces the appropriate policies. Altering the source IP address by the pcp proxy is a solution to redirect all the incoming  pcp traffic explicitly to the PCP proxy. In addition, as indicated below, proxy implications on authentication are out of scope of this document. The proxy document adopts the same rationale as the base pcp specification.

b)
Are you planning to update the draft  with details about the usage of PCP proxy with PCP auth.
[Med] NO. The plan is to follow what have been presented during the Berlin meeting (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-pcp-2.pdf): "Proxy implication on authentication are out of scope and should be specified in pcp-authentication document"

In addition to the existing use cases this integration will be useful for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-pcp-flowdata-00 where the PCP proxy in the Home network receives the flow characteristics signaled by the PCP client and propagates the flow characteristics to the PCP Server in the Access Network.

Cheers,
-Tiru.