Re: [pcp] PANA implementatinos to consider

Hi Sam,

> 
> 
> hi.
> So, as I mentioned  earlier I'm either in the camp of strongly
> preferring PCP-specific authentication or in the camp of not caring much
> at all.
> 
> I'd kind of like to find out which camp I'm in by the 21st.
> 
> My nervousness is about implementation complexity.

Is that the only one? Or do you have other concerns as well? 

As for the implementation complexity, I don't quite understand why PANA (which is basically EAP over UDP) would ever be more complicated then to-be-designed "EAP over UDP within PCP framework". While I don't see a reason for former being more complicated, I see reasons for seeing the latter being more complicated, as the whole thing now needs to live within another protocol framework (read: format, flow, state machine harmonization between the two).

> I would like to see
> PCP authentication be something that can easily be implemented with
> open-source libraries. I know how to do that if we use an EAP library
> directly.

Would there be any difference between PANA and EAPoverUDP/PCP when it comes to using EAP libraries? I don't think so.

Alper

> I've managed projects doing something quite similar and I
> understand the implementation complexity.
> 
> Would people familiar with PANA implementation be willing to suggest
> which implementation I should look at? I'd prefer to look at one, but if
> there's disagreement I'd be happy to look at two.
> I'm sure you've done your analysis on this point but I'll feel more
> comfortable if I do my own.
> 
> I'll be happy to share my conclusions as I suspect that there are other
> WG participants who care about implementation complexity.
> 
> If there are open-source PCP servers I'd be happy to glance at those
> just to see how things like memory management, event loop and state
> management line up.
> 
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp