Subject: Fw: [midcom] How much leeway does this WG have?

From: "B. Scott Michel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:23:08 -0800

Thanks to Jiri for forwarding this back to me. I forgot to cc the list. :-(

----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:23:18AM +0100, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> > Scott Michel wrote:
> > I personally consider application in network a suboptimal idea. I accept
> > as a matter of fact that ALGs are present in firewalls/NATs and would
> > like to make the ALGs somewhat easier to live with by decomposition.
> > I would not advocate adding even more application into network.
> >
> > As for this WG I think we should keep focused on the urgent problems
> > and not extend the scope.

 I didn't say anything about putting applications in networks.

 Let me clarify: There seems to be a trend where the interaction between
applications looks more like a network and not the traditional model of
client-server, with the "middle" boxes transparently or not so
transparently interacting with the traffic in-flight. There are several
application-level networks interacting in this WG's charter, one of
which happens need to communicate policy between the middle boxes.

I'm willing to propose an application-level routing and forwarding
architecture which does solve the middle-box interaction problem.
It's what I'm researching for a degree anyway.

I think my proposal would fit into the charter in the first deliverable
but would have to be narrowed so as not to broaden the scope of the WG.
It should be sufficiently general so as to provide the generalized
communication interfaces referenced in the WG's charter.

If my proposal is spooge, it's spooge. If it's a useful contribution,
so much the better.

-scooter

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom