Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

[Yoshihiro Ohba <[e-mail]>]

Alper,

(2012/08/07 17:10), Alper Yegin wrote:

>>
>> If we specify a new use of PANA "Reserved" field, it cannot be an
>> Errata because it is not a specification error.  It needs to be a new
>> RFC that updates RFC 5191.
> 
> 
> Those bits are reserved for "future."
> And because of this demux design, "now" we want to make sure no one will ever set bit#7.

I think "no one will ever set bit#7" is too much restricted.

Because of in-band key management, a bit in the PANA "Reserved" field
to be used for demultiplexing "over PCP port" can be meaningful only
when PANA message is carried "over the PCP port".   The bit could also
be used for demultiplexing other application carried over another port
if the other application allows to use the bit for demultiplexing
purpose as well.

>From PANA perspective, we can now allocate the whole 16-bit "Reserved"
PANA field for "in-band key management usage", and let each
application including PCP define how to demultiplex using the 16-bit.
 I think this is a cleaner and extensible approach.

Yoshihiro Ohba


> What we need is to allocate that bit and state it's always set to 0. I don't think we need a separate RFC for this, this'd be the RFC that defines how PANA and PCP are used together.
> 
> Alper
> 
>   
> 
> 
>