[pcp] Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

Hi.
First, I want to thank the folks working on the PANA proposals.
Based on discussion, I think the issues resolved at the last meeting
regarding  version negotiation and other discussions that were
PANA-specific brought up at the meeting have been resolved to my
satisfaction.
I still prefer the PANA encapsulation option to the PANA
demultiplexing option, although I agree that both PANA options will
work.

At last meeting, we got kind of stuck in the details of the specific
proposals. It was good that we discussed the specific version number to
use and it was good that we discussed some of the rationale for single
ports.
However, we didn't get around to discussing the broader architectural
questions like:

1) Does PCP need re-authentication

2) Do we want authentication to be server or client initiated in PCP?

ETc.
We had some great discussion leading up to the last meeting and  were
approaching understanding of the architectural issues that I think we
need to consider in order to make a decision about the authentication
approach.
However, we got stuck  in the details and didn't get a chance to discuss
these issues.

I want to confirm that we're going to give priority to these
architectural issues in this call, focusing on them rather than updates
to the PANA proposals or discussion of the specifics of the PCP-specific
approach.  I hope we're all on the same page on that.  If not, I'd like
to start an agenda bashing discussion now.