IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

"Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com> Mon, 20 August 2012 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangdacheng@huawei.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 3962D21F8650 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.663, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 8yvXrUJ4ORV1 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C8B21F8647 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJE77907; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:07:55 -0700
Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by dfweml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:07:55 -0700
Received: from SZXEML528-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.217]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:07:52 +0800
From: "Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
To: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>, Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
Thread-Index: AQHNfHlL1F5Ai0qa4kawmCOKzP6BvpddkQ6AgAS6yUA=
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:07:51 +0000
Message-ID: <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E305C5979@szxeml528-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <BB72B80F-0622-4A5B-A985-79D8AED13E0B@apple.com> <003b01cd7587$a111b760$e3352620$@com> <15990E87-2D59-49B1-845C-2A4CB5A1FBD6@lilacglade.org> <008801cd758f$3fd306e0$bf7914a0$@com> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE65225@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <028801cd75d6$c5765490$5062fdb0$@com> <tsla9y4gptp.fsf@mit.edu> <04c901cd7658$37a740c0$a6f5c240$@com> <tslboikexlv.fsf@mit.edu> <054001cd765d$54c0f3e0$fe42dba0$@com> <0F259BA1-CEFF-4346-AFE5-3D33BB0CF0CC@lilacglade.org> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE756EE@szxeml528-mbs.china.huawei.com> <502C6BF0.3030400@toshiba.co.jp> <6F0B4ED8-68F1-44BB-A94B-E5D86E6C7254@lilacglade.org> <502CEB6D.6040304@toshiba.co.jp> <684F11AE-1361-4A75-A70B-8B0226510E09@gmail.com> <63E0C6E0-8E5B-4AAA-B0C8-D2E892ECEE18@yegin.org> <tsl393l3bvg.fsf@mit.edu> <502E5AE7.1000407@toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <502E5AE7.1000407@toshiba.co.jp>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.49]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of 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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:13:57 -0000

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:53 PM
> To: Sam Hartman
> Cc: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
> 
> I am ok without supporting PANA relay for PCP authentication.
> 
> It also makes key management easier because remote transport of PCP
> key from PAA to PCP server is needed if PANA relay is supported for
> PCP authentication.
> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> (2012/08/17 22:07), Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >      Alper> EAP Authenticator is on the PCP server.  Hence, PAA (PANA
> >      Alper> Authentication Agent) and PCP server are on the same node.
> >      Alper> Therefore, the PAA can tell whether it's authenticating the
> >      Alper> PaC for PCP or for network access by looking at the
> >      Alper> destination port.  That's sufficient.
> >
> > So you are happy to decide PCP authentication doesn't need a PANA relay?
> > If so, I propose we explicitly decide that.
> >
> > It makes my channel binding question easier.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email