Re: [pcp] REQ-14 in PCP Authentication Requirements

They can use EAP-TLS with server-side-only authentication.

On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:

> I have a clarification for both the drafts - how do EAP-in-PCP, PANA solutions meet REQ-14 ?
> 
> --Tiru.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Thaler [mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:03 AM
>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: [pcp] CONSENSUS CALL on PCP security
>> 
>> The WG has discussed two approaches for using EAP with PCP:
>> direct EAP-in-PCP vs using PANA.
>> 
>> At IETF 84, we polled the room and got 5 hands for direct EAP-in-PCP
>> and 10 or 11 for PANA. There was significant confusion/disagreement
>> around requirements and proposed solutions at that time.
>> 
>> At IETF 85, we again polled the room and got a different result, this
>> time 12 hands for direct EAP-in-PCP and 6 for PANA. There was, however,
>> still significant confusion/disagreement around requirements and
>> proposed solutions.
>> 
>> Since IETF 85, we have made lots of progress on getting agreement
>> on the requirements, and draft-reddy-pcp-auth-req now seems to be
>> relatively stable without significant areas of disagreement known.
>> Discussion may of course continue if new issues are raised but we
>> believe any additional changes are unlikely to affect people's
>> position on overall solution approach, i.e. direct EAP-in-PCP vs. PANA.
>> 
>> The general sense of the WG also seems to be that either approach could be
>> made to fit the requirements, so we believe it is now time for us to
>> determine consensus (draft-resnick-on-consensus is a great read)
>> on the approach question. We know many folks would just like to
>> make a decision and move on.
>> 
>> Hence the chairs would like to ask the WG which solution direction the
>> WG should pursue in meeting the requirements. Please state your
>> recommendation on this thread, preferably along with your rationale.
>> Avoid responding on this thread to others' rationale, use a separate
>> thread as needed.
>> 
>> To help us judge consensus, please use the template below and
>> respond by SUNDAY JULY 28.
>> 
>> -Dave and Reinaldo
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> 1) Could you *live with* EAP-in-PCP? If not, state reason you would object.
>> 
>>     <NO and state reason, or YES>
>> 
>> 2) Could you *live with* PANA? If not, state reason you would object.
>> 
>>     <NO and state reason, or YES>
>> 
>> 3) If you said yes to both 1 and 2, but have a strong preference between
>> the two, which approach do you prefer and why?
>> 
>>     <EAP-in-PCP, or PANA>.  <state reason>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp