IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org> Tue, 07 August 2012 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mrw@lilacglade.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 05B6611E809B for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.708
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJDuuRZuk8JD for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ec2-23-21-76-251.compute-1.amazonaws.com (ec2-23-21-227-93.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.21.227.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753A721F85CC for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.5] (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BDDD2023F; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-12-994396974"
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
In-Reply-To: <478EC6FB-18B8-46BC-8CEC-2EB9F0B339FE@yegin.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:10:16 -0400
Message-Id: <1F6F2A45-CCD3-4AEB-A127-EEC9E248532D@lilacglade.org>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <075301cd7419$19557dd0$4c007970$@com> <A8A3C2BF-6966-4043-ABF1-363EDA3BB7F8@lilacglade.org> <tslzk67shwh.fsf@mit.edu> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE64A4A@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <tslfw7yr385.fsf@mit.edu> <478EC6FB-18B8-46BC-8CEC-2EB9F0B339FE@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
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, 07 Aug 2012 21:10:20 -0000

Hi Alper,

On Aug 7, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>> 
>> Everything I say here can be applied to PANA with a bit of creativity.
> 
> PANA itself already has that property.

The specific discussion was about whether we can piggyback authentication messages in the PCP request/response packets when PANA is used in an encapsulated mode.  So, while PANA itself may not require server state, it can't (alone) prevent the PCP Server from needing to maintain server state in this case.  While we probably could achieve this using encapsulated PANA, we would also need to do something to retain the PCP Server state as part of the session.

Margaret

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email