Re: [pcp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-04: (with COMMENT)

Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Thu, 19 November 2015 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Quittek@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E137D1AD2D9; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:03:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GKoKYEeEZUf2; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEFBB1B2A0F; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 01:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DD710B0B8; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:03:11 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zrfkZtmuP7yV; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:03:11 +0100 (CET)
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49A9110B0B4; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:02:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.59]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:02:37 +0100
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-04: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIYrA29NS905uR0qku071146qTp6iYCIg///4pICAALWHwA==
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:02:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E8A99F976A@PALLENE.office.hd>
References: <20151117225308.24498.5302.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9AB93E4127C26F4BA7829DEFDCE5A6E8A99F6E4A@PALLENE.office.hd> <4898CE7B-68E7-4E76-BD1E-01B1933EE85F@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4898CE7B-68E7-4E76-BD1E-01B1933EE85F@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.99.69]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/VOMB3L79HHkAPcdYU9SkKdEC-1Q>
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "pcp-chairs@ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:03:17 -0000

Dear Ben,
Please find replies inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 19. November 2015 00:10
> To: Juergen Quittek
> Cc: The IESG; draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option@ietf.org; pcp-chairs@ietf.org;
> repenno@cisco.com; pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-
> option-04: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks for the response. A few more comments are imbedded. I removed
> sections that do not seem to need further discussion.
> 
> Ben.
> 
> On 18 Nov 2015, at 16:47, Juergen Quittek wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> 
> [...]
> 
> >
> >> - Figure 2: is there an assumption that the L2 tunnel to the CGN NAT
> >> is
> >> the same as or correlated with that to the UPnP IGD?
> >
> > No. they are uncorrelated.
> 
> That confuses me. If they are not correlated, how does the CGN do
> anything useful with the tunnel ID it receives from the PCP IWF?

When the IGW generates a PCP request to the CGN, 
it retrieves the corresponding tunnel ID from the AAA server.

> >
> >> - 3.2: Is there an assumption the web application authenticates
> >> users? I
> >> assume so, since the web app needs to get the ID from somewhere.
> >
> > Yes, there is this assumption. It is required for security reasons.
> 
> It would be useful to mention that in the text.

OK. We will do so in the next revision.

Thanks,
    Juergen