Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

+1 support.

We need to move forward asap.

Best wishes
Qiong

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, <christian.jacquenet@orange.com> wrote:

> Dave, all,
>
> I'd like to second Med's comment.
>
> I'm too opposed to motion #1 below, especially in light of the need for
> the THIRD_PARTY option for DS-Lite deployments that will start in a couple
> of months from now as far as some service providers are concerned. The
> security concerns that have been raised so far do not apply to DS-Lite
> scenarios, as reminded by Med below.
>
> I think the -24 is in a sufficiently good shape to be published as is,
> whereas DS-Lite scenarios remain one of the most straightforward use cases
> for PCP applicability, and was actually a key driver for the initial base
> spec effort back in 2010.
>
> Simply ignoring what becomes a fact in the very short term because of
> security considerations that do not apply to such use case is not a good
> enough reason for me to defer the standardization of the THIRD PARTY at
> who-knows-when.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:15
> À : Dave Thaler; pcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings
>
> 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 : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> >Dave Thaler Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:00 À : pcp@ietf.org 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
> >pcp@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for
> messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>