[pcp] PCP Failure scenarios (was RE: Gentle Reminder of Action items)

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

As a follow-up to this action point, a new version of the failure analysis draft is now available online:

"- PCP failure scenarios need to contain only those scenarios not covered

by base spec (open)"

This new version indicates whether the analyzed failure use case is already solved by the base PCP spec or not. The links to retrieve the new version are provided below:


Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06

Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06

I hope this version addresses the concerns raised in the previous pcp meeting.

Cheers,
Med


De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
Envoyé : vendredi 3 mai 2013 23:19
À : [e-mail]
Objet : [pcp] Gentle Reminder of Action items


We are 3 months from IETF Berlin, so a gentle nudge.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-pcp



Summary of action items in no specific order:



- WGLC for PCP Server Selection and gathering of reviewers (soon)

- Further clarification on the use of IP address in DHCP PCP Option (ADs)

- PCP Proxy needs a security section (open)

- PCP Proxy: discussion whether PCP needs a bit about mandatory/optional

to process bit for opcodes (open)

- Create a PCP nested NAT use-case and based on that the required extension (open)

- Radius Extension confirmation of adoption on list (done, probably need respin)

- PCP failure scenarios need to contain only those scenarios not covered

by base spec (open)

- PCP authentication option will star off with option 4

"Servers continue to use same SA to protect messages pertaining to

   that mapping, even if the SA is technically expired."

- PCP authentication draft need updated based on discussion (done, discussed on interim)

- Adopt PCP Nat coord as WG document (done, need review based on comments)



Thanks,



Reinaldo and Dave