IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Mon, 06 August 2012 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F0E11E80A5 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.337
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.951, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-0dS77u1Z0I for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ec2-23-21-76-251.compute-1.amazonaws.com (ec2-23-21-76-251.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.21.76.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F0811E8087 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0CEB2002D; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 5E47E420E; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <075301cd7419$19557dd0$4c007970$@com> <A8A3C2BF-6966-4043-ABF1-363EDA3BB7F8@lilacglade.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:46:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <A8A3C2BF-6966-4043-ABF1-363EDA3BB7F8@lilacglade.org> (Margaret Wasserman's message of "Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:07:54 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslzk67shwh.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:46:45 -0000

I actually don't think you can gain much value from encapsulation.
The issue is that you'll need to resend the PCP request once you have a
key available.

At least in the case where the client wants authentication, you cannot
save a half round trip through encapsulation.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email