IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Tue, 16 October 2012 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 66B681F0CA4 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.943
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sIdc-j2yazKO for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE931F0CA8 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail101-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.229) by AM1EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.3.204.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:43 +0000
Received: from mail101-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail101-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9B2C012F; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -27
X-BigFish: VS-27(zz9371I542M1432Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail101-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail101-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail101-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1350362201738320_26627; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.238]) by mail101-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93863E0060; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (10.3.207.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:40 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.180) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:38 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:36:37 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.111]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:36:37 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting
Thread-Index: AQHNq1JJqaYRxcMAAUezIFxTjuMPZpe7V85Q
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:36 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B855ED3@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <tsl7gqr83yf.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsl7gqr83yf.fsf@mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.42]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [pcp] Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:36:46 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Sam Hartman
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 8:57 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting
> 
> Hi.
> First, I want to thank the folks working on the PANA proposals.
> Based on discussion, I think the issues resolved at the last meeting regarding
> version negotiation and other discussions that were PANA-specific brought
> up at the meeting have been resolved to my satisfaction.
> I still prefer the PANA encapsulation option to the PANA demultiplexing
> option, although I agree that both PANA options will work.
> 
> At last meeting, we got kind of stuck in the details of the specific proposals. It
> was good that we discussed the specific version number to use and it was
> good that we discussed some of the rationale for single ports.
> However, we didn't get around to discussing the broader architectural
> questions like:
> 
> 1) Does PCP need re-authentication
> 
> 2) Do we want authentication to be server or client initiated in PCP?
> 
> ETc.
> We had some great discussion leading up to the last meeting and  were
> approaching understanding of the architectural issues that I think we need to
> consider in order to make a decision about the authentication approach.
> However, we got stuck  in the details and didn't get a chance to discuss these
> issues.
> 
> I want to confirm that we're going to give priority to these architectural issues
> in this call, focusing on them rather than updates to the PANA proposals or
> discussion of the specifics of the PCP-specific approach.  I hope we're all on
> the same page on that.  If not, I'd like to start an agenda bashing discussion
> now.
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

Unless my co-chair disagrees, that is my plan.   We didn't get to Margaret's
slides last time so assuming she's willing, I'll let her present first and hopefully
that will generate a good discussion of architectural issues.   

The two PANA drafts are quite short and last meeting I think folks generally
understood at a high level the differences, although it's great to see they got
updated/written up accordingly.

-Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email