Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

[Alper Yegin <[e-mail]>]

>> Also, if an update to PANA allows 0b00000010 in that first octet, we will
>> have a problem.  It would be safer if we assign the last two bits in that
>> first octet of PANA to must-be-zero.  Perhaps via an Errata against the PANA
>> spec, if we decide this is the best solution.
> 


> 
> 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.
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