Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

[<[e-mail]>]

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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la 
>part de Dave Thaler
>Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:00
>À : [e-mail]
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>