[pcp] Architectural questions (was Re: Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting)

Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Tue, 16 October 2012 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8318A21F87EF for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtTeHLItRwiK for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19A921F87EA for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.4] (88.247.135.202.static.ttnet.com.tr [88.247.135.202]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MeQLf-1SzR9p1YFz-00Q7YS; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:25:33 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
In-Reply-To: <tsl7gqr83yf.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:25:16 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BF589F29-B82C-4B3E-9651-0ED79FE207BB@yegin.org>
References: <tsl7gqr83yf.fsf@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:eENszQ+EkHonmY8aUrR/ig6nzoXR+P6/WRBn4N0TRvN wGlZ+y4dG0AOm8r6iQtuuG84pyH8wKx6FXhouJDrhWnqugClF2 ln+riFhBUPyijnn/1g1pDOj2EPz+9y5D1g7Ok2x7wQu1Febu0K 10iP4aBXycyzfOx9O6GYToZWq7dMDUDPNQseKBAtHKpVw6RoOZ ZDf/ip69A0szcXr35UZCj/Er4amGDjc16b/55Js/fxmZDjHMOb vfzl1nOFsAG1G5hGjWl+wBCATDPBVsQLg7olIAi8QdVVgeddpU sdcLukOuAEc3lSoSWkE5DxR3n0hxIJDnarASiy2n9YqH4MLZKw kbmp903cpe5IvIOIL16jSFTqIHqmuKLHUo6pb5ziP/io/mxIXi oKPaCDwBXhzDA==
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] Architectural questions (was Re: Agenda question about Wednesday's meeting)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:25:35 -0000

Hi Sam,

> However, we didn't get around to discussing the broader architectural
> questions like:
> 

Let's get these rolling….


> 1) Does PCP need re-authentication
> 

Authentication is for authorization, and it comes with finite lifetime.
The authorized service (e.g., "port mapping", "firewall rule") is good within the authorized lifetime of the service.
Before the lifetime exceeds, authorization either needs to be "extended" via re-authentication, or left to expire and disappear.

We need to support re-authentication for PCP.

> 2) Do we want authentication to be server or client initiated in PCP?
> 

EAP (RFC 3748) by its design is server initiated and driven (requests always come from the server side).
"EAP" can be triggered externally (e.g., by the mean of "EAP lower layer") from client side.

Having provided these background info, what's the significance of this question?

Alper
 



> ETc.