Re: [pcp] Fwd: Comparison of PCP authentication

[Subir Das <[e-mail]>]

I also tried the audio and it was very poor. You have summarized it nicely
though. I am not resisting anything, I was merely stating my takeway on
Chair's statement.

-Subir

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I went to the audio, to try to understand this resistance to analyzing
> everything.
>
> The discussion of the three options started at about 77 minutes into the
> audio, which is at
> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf84/ietf84-regencya-20120802-1510-pm2.mp3.
>  The
> audio quality is pretty poor.
>
> I heard:
>  1.  separate PCP-dedicated function:  4 hands
>  2.  PANA 'tunnel': ? hands (I could not hear)
>  3.  PCP/PANA demux: 5 hands
>  4.  don't care:  ? hands (I could not hear)
>
> then, after a little more hand-raising, PANA had twice the votes of a
> separate PCP-dedicated function.  Alain said the direction is PANA on a
> single port.  I then heard myself asking at the microphone that I answered
> "don't care" because I lack enough information to decide.  I couldn't hear
> Margaret's reply in the audio.
>
>
> In any event, I am struggling to understand the resistance to analyzing all
> three in detail.  Worried a non-PANA solution will win, or the analysis
> will
> take an additional 15 minutes, or what?
>
> -d
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Subir Das
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:27 AM
> > To: Margaret Wasserman
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [pcp] Fwd: Comparison of PCP authentication
> >
> > Margaret,
> > I realized that I didn't copy my  mail to the mailing list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Subir
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Subir Das <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
> > To: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Margaret,
> > My recollection regarding conclusion was little different:
> >
> > We will discuss  the following two PANA-based approaches and then
> > decide:
> >
> > - PANA Encapsulated in PCP
> > - PANA Demultiplexed with PCP on the same port
> >
> > The consensus in the room  was that PANA-based approach is preferrable
> > over PCP specific approach. I need to look at the meeting minutes and
> > recording though.
> >
> > regards,
> > _Subir
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Margaret Wasserman
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       Hi Dacheng,
> >
> >       The conclusion from the meeting was that we will document all
> > three approaches in our document:
> >
> >       - PCP Specific
> >       - PANA Encapsulated in PCP
> >       - PANA Demultiplexed with PCP on the same port
> >
> >       Then, we will have an interim PCP conference call to discuss the
> > trade-offs and hopefully decide between them.
> >
> >
> >       Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> >       On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Zhangdacheng (Dacheng) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >               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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       pcp mailing list
> >       [e-mail]
> >       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>