Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

["Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <[e-mail]>]

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