Re: [pcp] CONSENSUS CALL on PCP security

[Alper Yegin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yoshi,


> I would note that the two PANA approaches (side-by-side and encapsulation) may have difference in supporting PCP proxy.  In the side-by-side approach (draft-ohba-pcp-pana), PANA relay would need to be implemented on PCP proxy to communicate client's IP address to the server since PCP THIRD_PARTY option is carried only in PCP message.  In the encapsulation approach (draft-ohba-pcp-pana-encap), PANA relay would not be needed since PCP THIRD_PARTY option can be carried in a PCP message that encapsulates a PANA message.
> 
> Since PANA relay is simple stateless relay, it should not be a problem with the side-by-side approach as long as THIRD_PARTY option is the only PCP option inserted by PCP proxy.  However, if PCP proxy inserts other PCP options as well, then I think the encapsulation approach can be better than the side-by-side approach.
> 

I didn't understand why PCP proxy having to insert any PCP options have any impact on the out-of band authentication performed by PANA.

Alper



> Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] CONSENSUS CALL on PCP security
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> In the poll when you refer to PANA, please clarify the draft you are referring to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohba-pcp-pana-04 or http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohba-pcp-pana-encap-01 ?
> 
> --Tiru.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Thaler [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:03 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [pcp] CONSENSUS CALL on PCP security
>> 
>> The WG has discussed two approaches for using EAP with PCP:
>> direct EAP-in-PCP vs using PANA.
>> 
>> At IETF 84, we polled the room and got 5 hands for direct EAP-in-PCP 
>> and 10 or 11 for PANA. There was significant confusion/disagreement 
>> around requirements and proposed solutions at that time.
>> 
>> At IETF 85, we again polled the room and got a different result, this 
>> time 12 hands for direct EAP-in-PCP and 6 for PANA. There was, 
>> however, still significant confusion/disagreement around requirements 
>> and proposed solutions.
>> 
>> Since IETF 85, we have made lots of progress on getting agreement on 
>> the requirements, and draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req now seems to be 
>> relatively stable without significant areas of disagreement known.
>> Discussion may of course continue if new issues are raised but we 
>> believe any additional changes are unlikely to affect people's 
>> position on overall solution approach, i.e. direct EAP-in-PCP vs. PANA.
>> 
>> The general sense of the WG also seems to be that either approach 
>> could be made to fit the requirements, so we believe it is now time 
>> for us to determine consensus (draft-resnick-on-consensus is a great 
>> read) on the approach question. We know many folks would just like to 
>> make a decision and move on.
>> 
>> Hence the chairs would like to ask the WG which solution direction the 
>> WG should pursue in meeting the requirements. Please state your 
>> recommendation on this thread, preferably along with your rationale.
>> Avoid responding on this thread to others' rationale, use a separate 
>> thread as needed.
>> 
>> To help us judge consensus, please use the template below and respond 
>> by SUNDAY JULY 28.
>> 
>> -Dave and Reinaldo
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> 1) Could you *live with* EAP-in-PCP? If not, state reason you would object.
>> 
>>     <NO and state reason, or YES>
>> 
>> 2) Could you *live with* PANA? If not, state reason you would object.
>> 
>>     <NO and state reason, or YES>
>> 
>> 3) If you said yes to both 1 and 2, but have a strong preference 
>> between the two, which approach do you prefer and why?
>> 
>>     <EAP-in-PCP, or PANA>.  <state reason>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp