Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dacheng,

The conclusion from the meeting was that we will document all three approaches in our document:

- PCP Specific
- PANA Encapsulated in PCP
- PANA Demultiplexed with PCP on the same port

Then, we will have an interim PCP conference call to discuss the trade-offs and hopefully decide between them.

Margaret



On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Zhangdacheng (Dacheng) wrote:

> Have we got any conclusions on two approaches?  Or we can just support the two options in the draft for the moment and briefly compare their pros and cons, can we?
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Dcheng
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 3:21 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
>  
>  
> On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>  
> If I'm updating security policy on a firewall I want to be able to
> audit whether that actually happened.  That requires authentication.
> 
> You are saying a PCP client would only want to update firewall policies 
> if the PCP server supports authentication, otherwise it would tell the
> user that it cannot enable the webcam, Internet-connected NAS, 
> Internet-connected printer, etc.?
>  
> I wont presume to guess what Sam is thinking...
>  
> However, I am thinking that there will be some clients  that are configured to perform authentication for every request.  For example, there is no reason for a PCP proxy, running in an environment where authentication is required to do a THIRD-PARTY request, to perform a useless round-trip for every THIRD-PARTY request it issues.  
>  
> Margaret
>  
>