[pcp] REQ-14 in PCP Authentication Requirements

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

I have a clarification for both the drafts - how do EAP-in-PCP, PANA solutions meet REQ-14 ?

--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>
>