IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] WG status on PCP authentication

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Fri, 14 September 2012 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 62EE421F84DF for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.539
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 Xzx02B4ok96c for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ec2-23-21-227-93.compute-1.amazonaws.com (ec2-23-21-227-93.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.21.227.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E691421F84D8 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-217-126-210.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.217.126.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A19D12010D; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 477FC4149; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B7B205A@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <B27AE62F-1ADF-44DE-AF33-0B7A3AD6ACDB@yegin.org> <D6230CDE-E869-406F-B194-8E9B626CA8D8@lilacglade.org> <5052D3F3.8000605@toshiba.co.jp> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E39E372B6@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <50532345.4060109@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:26:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <50532345.4060109@toshiba.co.jp> (Yoshihiro Ohba's message of "Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:29:57 +0900")
Message-ID: <tslboh865pa.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG status on PCP authentication
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: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:27:01 -0000

    Yoshihiro> Hi Dacheng, A good question.  Actually both approaches
    Yoshihiro> has some impact on RFC 5191 to allow PANA to run over a
    Yoshihiro> non-PANA port (which would require updating RFC 5191).
    Yoshihiro> This made me think that the need for updating RFC 5191 to
    Yoshihiro> use the Reserved field in the demultiplexing approach is
    Yoshihiro> not considered as a cons.


Hi.
I have two questions about your comparison:

1) How the encapsulation approach requires tight coupling 

2) Why tight coupling is a bad thing given that we've ruled relays out
of scope.

--Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email