IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with DISCUSS)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 09 July 2015 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 BBA201AD324; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dPFqQ6CIrTli; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82FF91AD353; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040E0BE77; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:20:51 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1436444451; bh=DXVGLqirzfNBafCwEtY+JOvQR0IA9Qj312MbXVPK5aQ=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=c6EXmbMjVWg9UjxD+Aejh2XexNqUWt5v5l7tUJhUaw88t56H/1ESaFoNZx/4tOnjC pcw9QhPYwjzt7JsVCGnkwRzRfGeHoo68BU6ESmBJYtmjfb+f/lgH6e9rEBCaqgyCci ulZrD3l37bdnb5dSRG3t0QjviZdxQGX3hHxDEb9U=
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-HIb0dKMqKG; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:20:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7546BE75; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:20:50 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1436444450; bh=DXVGLqirzfNBafCwEtY+JOvQR0IA9Qj312MbXVPK5aQ=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=akjwzaFPWnlJLgHZzlhkTj/fd67iett4v+4cFZ30Ij8J8LxPQYvxmzuoTrJSKfbrW oG5A1CSMucxyEnQ9e3ilkA3Y8oC4OjT1kVcVXCpNOfFjFySGOtfnN9QasvQF/zYxN/ FhyTwwnC98QhF8NFYu6Z43cE8Br4AjgWa6qiDdAM=
Message-ID: <559E6722.7000504@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:20:50 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150709113220.17494.888.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005359436@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933005359436@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/_dxYJ0-shsxmgS1EahBBlZkRPEQ>
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with DISCUSS)
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, 09 Jul 2015 12:20:58 -0000

Hi Med,

On 09/07/15 12:58, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> FWIW, the document does not include any discussion about
> authentication as per slide 4 of
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-pcp-2.pdf. Those
> aspects are out of scope of this document; implication assessment is
> supposed to be in the PCP auth draft.

Well, I don't believe the PCP auth draft says anything about
PCP proxies does it?

But I'm not asking about where/how we document stuff but rather
about how it is supposed to work.

> 
> The answer to your question is in slide 3
> (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-pcp-6.pdf).

Sorry, I don't get an answer to my question from that, can
you explain?

Ta,
S.


> 
> Cheers, Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine----- De : pcp [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org]
>> De la part de Stephen Farrell Envoyé : jeudi 9 juillet 2015 13:32 À
>> : The IESG Cc : pcp@ietf.org Objet : [pcp] Stephen Farrell's
>> Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for 
>> draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
>> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> 
I have one thing I'd like to check. Maybe this just works fine,
>> but how does this function work with PCP authentication?  E.g. in
>> Figure 1, is the left-most client authenticating to the middle or
>> rightmost server? I think I could imagine either answer being
>> desirable and don't see a way that both could be supported.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ pcp mailing list 
>> pcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email