Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

+1

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:31 AM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1
> 
> Cheers,
> Wim
> _________________
> sent from blackberry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:29 AM
> To: BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP <[e-mail]>; Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings
> 
> 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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de [e-mail]
> Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:15
> À : Dave Thaler; [e-mail]
> 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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de 
>> Dave Thaler Envoyé : jeudi 29 mars 2012 10:00 À : [e-mail] 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp