Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP security question

From: Jiang Dong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:49:28 +0800

Hi,
My opinion is do the security within the PCP protocol.
Secure channel is complicated, which actually will not be used in normal case. If there exists a easy subscriber identification to secure the common attack like DoS, unwanted mapping deleting, that would be better. 

Best regards!
Jiang Dong
2010-11-12

发件人： Alain Durand 
发送时间： 2010-11-11  20:02:20 
收件人： [email-masked] 
抄送： 
主题： [pcp] PCP security question 
During the wg meeting, there was a discussion on how to deal with security with PCP. The two options were either to deal with it within the PCP protocol or rely on channel security.
There was a rough consensus in the room to rely on channel security. The chairs would like to verify this on the mailing list.  Deadline to comment is Nov. 18th 2010.
  Alain & Dave.
_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:18:12 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

    Secure channel is complicated, which actually will not be used in
    normal case. If there exists a easy subscriber identification to
    secure the common attack like DoS, unwanted mapping deleting, that
    would be better.

=> your argument is a bit ambiguous: for instance I don't understand
if it applies to DS-Lite, i.e., do you mean in DS-Lite a secure channel
is not needed?

BTW IMHO Alain's question is about using a secure channel vs. extra
security features in the protocol, in cases where such a thing is
required.

Regards

[email-masked]