Subject: Re: [midcom] Out-of-Path Midcom Agents in framework-02

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:12 -0400

> We all know that in the end the only way to accomplish this nirvana 
> is to lock it up and turn it off. Is that really the class of solution 
> we want in midcom?

no, but I think you are exaggerating.  midcom can do useful work
by tackling the basic problems outlined in its charter and avoiding
the pitfalls that come from trying to over-generalize the problem.

Keith

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

---

From: "Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:34:58 -0600

> granted. though I submit it also be useful to this group if you would 
> refrain from name-calling and ad hominem attacks. characterizing those
> who disagree with you as 'zealots' or 'crusty old purists' 
> doesn't exactly increase the signal-to-noise ratio either.

Keith: I think your approach is very endearing, actually. And great
entertainment, even if I don't agree with the position you so
predictably take. I'm surprised you don't consider those labels a badge
of honor, frankly. Nevertheless, I'm committed to improving the
signal-to-noise ratio so please permit me to apologize and move on to
the issues at hand.

> there are still serious operational, security, scalability,
deployability 
> and interoperability hazards associated with what midcom is working
on.  
> folks ignore these at their peril, and at the peril of the Internet.

> midcom's purpose, like that of the rest of IETF, is to figure out
> what makes sense from an engineering perspective, and design protocols
> that fit within a sensible engineering framework, for the benefit
> of the entire Internet community.  the fact that some companies want
to 
> deploy products that do not make engineering sense in this context
> is not a justification for demanding that midcom help them do so.

Agreed. But no standard is worth pursuing if it provides no value to
potential implementers. There is a balance here, and while all of us
would like a technically perfect standard the reality is akin to the
notion of creating a perfectly secure device. We all know that in the
end the only way to accomplish this nirvana is to lock it up and turn it
off. Is that really the class of solution we want in midcom?

--Andy Zmolek
    Technology & Standards Engineer
      CTO Standards
        Avaya Inc.

            [email-masked]
              +1 720 444 4001

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:09:50 -0700

> potential implementers.

s/implementors/users/

randy