IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
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 8742C21F86B9 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.791
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.497, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EeOagNQuMsIM for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ec2-23-21-76-251.compute-1.amazonaws.com (ec2-23-21-227-93.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.21.227.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1283D21F86B7 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF54E2014C; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 97B5D420E; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <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>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:47:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <15990E87-2D59-49B1-845C-2A4CB5A1FBD6@lilacglade.org> (Margaret Wasserman's message of "Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:07:09 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslk3x9mg2v.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:47:08 -0000

It's not just that implementations may optimize sending an
authentication request.

An implementation MAY require authentication.
I.E. it is unwilling to send the request unless it has an authenticated
channel.
For firewall control this makes a lot of sense.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email