Re: [pcp] About selecting a key management for PCP

> an in-band authenticaiton mchanism for PCP (actually a simplified PANA).

It's not simplified…. It's basically growing PANA (an EAPoUDP transport) within PCP. A redundant work that'd result in more complexity than keeping two simple protocols separate. This "oh I'll just carry EAP over my favorite protocol (e.g., DHCP!), and it'd be sooo simple" was tried before and failed miserably.  PCP and its key management are two separate issues that deserve two separate protocols (similar to IKE and IPsec being separate). I don't see any value in cobbling them up, which is more like a PPP-style approach -- all-in-one. 

Alper

On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Zhangdacheng (Dacheng) wrote:

> Hi, All:
> 
> We have a discussion about the selection of a key management mechanism for PCP, but there is not a conclusion yet. Basically, people focus on two solutions, using PANA or generating an in-band authenticaiton mchanism for PCP (actually a simplified PANA). Now, there is a new draft draft-ohba-pcp-pana-00, which tries to specify the first one. So, maybe it is the right time to raise this disucssion again and decide the key management solution for PCP eventually.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dacheng
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp