Re: [pcp] Revising PANA side-by-side approach

Just to add to few things to what Yoshi said…

> 
> Hi Yoshi,
> 
> The concern that I have with this approach is that it seems short-sited to me...
> 
> If we expect PANA to be used as a generic authentication mechanism, rather than being used specifically for network access authentication, I think we need to do two things:
> 
> 1) Provide a clear explanation of what parts of PANA will be used with PCP.   For example, the notion of a network access enforcement point doesn't really make sense in a PCP context. 

PANA spec recognizes the possibility that the authenticator and the enforcement point may be separate.
This is a possible case in access networks.
While this possibility is recognized, it does not make any difference on the authentication procedure as you can see from RFC 5191.

(and in the case of PCP use, enforcement point and PAA are co-located.)

> 2) Describe a clean mechanism that allows PANA to be used for authentication of other protocols.
> 
> Overloading a single bit in the PCP version field, because it happens to coincide with a flag bit in PANA doesn't seem like a method that will work for other protocols, and I am concerned that it doesn't provide a clean basis for moving forward.
> 

This is done here just because folks wanted to share the same port for PANA and PCP.
I'm in fact seeking further clarification on this need. I had asked this on the ML http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg02395.html (*) but no one answered. So, I'm not sure how necessary this port sharing is. 
And I don't know if anyone else would require the same for another protocol down the road. 
So, when we need to do this for other protocols, I don't think we'd need to do port sharing.

(*) I had said "I wasn't on the jabber at previous IETF, so maybe I missed some of the discussions." in that email. I made a typo. I meant "I was on the jabber (not in the meeting room), so maybe I missed some of the discussions."

Alper

> Margaret
> 
> 
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> 
>> Since PCP Version 0 is used by draft-cheshire-nat-pmp, I plan to
>> revise PANA side-by-side approach I-D (draft-ohba-pcp-pana) to use
>> Bit 0 instead of Bits 5-6-7. The new logic is that when bit 0 is 1 it's
>> PANA,
>> otherwise it's PCP and alike. If there is an issue with the new logic,
>> please let me know.
>> 
>> I also plan to submit PANA encasulation approach as a separate I-D
>> before the next interim meeting.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Yoshihiro Ohba
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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