Message info
 
To:Dave Thaler From:Sam Hartman Subject:Re: [pcp] Confirming consensus from WG meetings: THIRD_PARTY revised Date:Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:05:15 -0400
 

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> writes:

Dave> * One is for use cases where the PCP client and PCP server are
Dave> owned and operated by the same entity and are placed on an
Dave> entirely trusted network. That is explicitly not a home
Dave> network nor a typical enterprise network. A PCP server
Dave> intended for a home network MUST NOT support this option.
Dave> This option can appear in the pcp-base spec with the above
Dave> restrictions and is intended to unblock the deployments of the
Dave> people who objected to the "separate it out" proposal. As
Dave> noted below, we rename this option to something else
Dave> (SAME_PARTY?) and use the term THIRD_PARTY for the next one.

I don't support this option in the base spec. Any such trusted network
is an environment where it would be reasonably easy to share credentials
between the PCP server and a authorized party. So, such an option is an
excellent candidate to be used along side a mandatory-to-implement
security mechanism. (Mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms are not
mandatory-to-use. If you don't think it is worth credentialing and would
prefer to turn off security, that's fine.)

As a result I believe we would produce a higher-quality spec if we had
only one third-party option. This compromise produces a technically
inferior result simply to get the third party option specified 6-9
months earlier.

I prefer either

1) Moving the third-party option to its own document

or
2) delaying the base spec

to this compromise option.

--Sam
_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
pcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp