Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

+1

Gilles

-----Message d'origine-----
De : JACQUENET Christian OLNC/NAD/TIP
Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:29
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Dave Thaler; pcp@ietf.org Objet : RE: Confirming consensus from WG meetings

Dave, all,

I'd like to second Med's comment. 

I'm too opposed to motion #1 below, especially in light of the need for the THIRD_PARTY option for DS-Lite deployments that will start in a couple of months from now as far as some service providers are concerned. The security concerns that have been raised so far do not apply to DS-Lite scenarios, as reminded by Med below.

I think the -24 is in a sufficiently good shape to be published as is, whereas DS-Lite scenarios remain one of the most straightforward use cases for PCP applicability, and was actually a key driver for the initial base spec effort back in 2010.

Simply ignoring what becomes a fact in the very short term because of security considerations that do not apply to such use case is not a good enough reason for me to defer the standardization of the THIRD PARTY at who-knows-when.

Cheers,

Christian.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:15 À : Dave Thaler; pcp@ietf.org Objet : Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

Dear Dave, all,

I was one of the 2 who objected to remove the THIRD_PARTY Option from the base spec. I maintain my objection because I see THIRD_PARTY as an important feature: allow to instruct mappings for non pcp compliant hosts/applications.   

Adding a normative ref to draft-wasserman for the THIRD_PARTY is too strong IMHO. The major scenarios which driven so far the development of PCP do not require authenticated PCP communications: why doing this for explicit mapping while this is not required for implicit mappings!

I do not want to slow down the progress of PCP base spec but cutting the important features from the base spec won't help too. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de 
>Dave Thaler Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:00 À : pcp@ietf.org Objet :
>[pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings
>
>We got consensus among those at the meetings on the following, and want 
>to confirm WG consensus on the list, in case there are new objections 
>raised or folks who were not present in the room at the time.
>
>1) Move THIRD_PARTY out of pcp-base to a separate spec (12 in favor, 2
>against)
>	This would resolve Stephen Farrell's discuss, allowing the base spec
>	to be published quickly.   The alternative would likely 
>take a lot more
>	time to address, especially given that we already moved DS-lite
>	discussion out of the base spec, and the DS-lite scenario was a key
>	motivation for THIRD_PARTY.
>
>2) Add a client-specified per-mapping nonce (no strong objections)
>	Belief is this is needed to resolve the transaction ID discuss's.
>	WG will not add a transaction id, but will add a per-mapping
>	nonce instead.
>
>3) Without having resolved the question of inline vs PANA first, adopt 
>draft-wasserman-pcp-authentication as a working group document
>(12 in favor, 3 against)
>	This would be the basis of the pcp security document.  Belief is
>	that much of the current document is independent of the 
>	unresolved question on the table, and the WG draft should
>	be agnostic on that question.
>
>4) Adopt draft-bpw-pcp-proxy as WG document (broad consensus
>	among those who've read it)
>
>Barring new objections that were not raised at the meeting, we plan to 
>go forward with the above consensus items.
>
>-Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>pcp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
pcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp