Subject: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:51:09 -0800

I'm assuming that the model of an RSIP client and server would be an example
of middlebox communication, per the charter. And further, that the real
deliverable for this working group
would be a capability that would superset RSIP and provide a more generic
model for middlebox policy interrogation, including more sophisticated trust
models. Is this correct?  

Thanks!
Randy

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

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:14:59 -0500

> model for middlebox policy interrogation, including more sophisticated trust

This isn't a competition and there's no intention to
supersede RSIP.  RSIP doesn't solve the entire set of
problems we're facing (3rd-party "control" interfaces,
large number of always- or usually-on devices).  It's
possible that RSIP may end up being used as the base
protocol when we do get to that stage, but there are
other candidate protocols, as well.

Melinda

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:47:39 -0800

>the real deliverable for this working group would be a capability that
>would superset RSIP

Keep it simple, please. RSIP's major failing was that it tried to do too
much, not too little. The world is littered with the bones of under-deployed
firewall traversal solutions. The crux of the problem is enabling inbound
traffic. Let's solve that with as little extraneous baggage as possible.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:39:45 -0500

> much, not too little. 

In a sense that's true, but I'd say it differently.  RSIP's major failing
was that it tried to do more than is reasonable or feasible given the 
inherent limitations of NAT.

If this group takes the attitude that NATs are inherently broken and that
there's really no way to fix them in the long term without phasing
out the NAT part, it's much more likely to produce something useful
than if it tries to find a way to incorporate NATs into the mainstream
architecture of the Internet.

Keith