IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> Fri, 17 August 2012 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
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 08F6911E80D5 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.039
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id miyUYoyQZqmp for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx2.toshiba.co.jp (inet-tsb5.toshiba.co.jp [202.33.96.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4D911E80DE for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arc1.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.194.235]) by imx2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q7HErPbs010092; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc1.toshiba.co.jp id q7HErPZr007597; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: from unknown [133.199.192.144] by arc1.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id ZAA07596; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900
Received: from mx.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id q7HErP9E010305; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbpoa.po.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id q7HErP7M000361; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.199.16.183] by mail.po.toshiba.co.jp (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0M8W00EEQMOZ7TL0@mail.po.toshiba.co.jp>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:25 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:53:27 +0900
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
In-reply-to: <tsl393l3bvg.fsf@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
Message-id: <502E5AE7.1000407@toshiba.co.jp>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <BB72B80F-0622-4A5B-A985-79D8AED13E0B@apple.com> <003b01cd7587$a111b760$e3352620$@com> <15990E87-2D59-49B1-845C-2A4CB5A1FBD6@lilacglade.org> <008801cd758f$3fd306e0$bf7914a0$@com> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE65225@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <028801cd75d6$c5765490$5062fdb0$@com> <tsla9y4gptp.fsf@mit.edu> <04c901cd7658$37a740c0$a6f5c240$@com> <tslboikexlv.fsf@mit.edu> <054001cd765d$54c0f3e0$fe42dba0$@com> <0F259BA1-CEFF-4346-AFE5-3D33BB0CF0CC@lilacglade.org> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE756EE@szxeml528-mbs.china.huawei.com> <502C6BF0.3030400@toshiba.co.jp> <6F0B4ED8-68F1-44BB-A94B-E5D86E6C7254@lilacglade.org> <502CEB6D.6040304@toshiba.co.jp> <684F11AE-1361-4A75-A70B-8B0226510E09@gmail.com> <63E0C6E0-8E5B-4AAA-B0C8-D2E892ECEE18@yegin.org> <tsl393l3bvg.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:53:49 -0000

I am ok without supporting PANA relay for PCP authentication.

It also makes key management easier because remote transport of PCP
key from PAA to PCP server is needed if PANA relay is supported for
PCP authentication.

Yoshihiro Ohba

(2012/08/17 22:07), Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
>      Alper> EAP Authenticator is on the PCP server.  Hence, PAA (PANA
>      Alper> Authentication Agent) and PCP server are on the same node.
>      Alper> Therefore, the PAA can tell whether it's authenticating the
>      Alper> PaC for PCP or for network access by looking at the
>      Alper> destination port.  That's sufficient.
> 
> So you are happy to decide PCP authentication doesn't need a PANA relay?
> If so, I propose we explicitly decide that.
> 
> It makes my channel binding question easier.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email