[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 <subirdas21@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>

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
<margaretw42@gmail.com>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:* pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Margaret
> Wasserman
> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2012 3:21 AM
> *To:* Dan Wing
> *Cc:* pcp@ietf.org
> *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
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>