Subject: RE: [midcom] Delete R48?

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:56:30 -0400

At 01:36 PM 8/23/01 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>I think that we may want to keep some version of rule 48 -- possibly
>rewritten. When you open a pinhole through a firewall, it seems
>reasonable to inform the firewall of the stated purpose of the opening:
>a voice conversation, a video stream, a file transfer. 

This strikes me as something that belongs with other filter
rule elements describing the desired pinhole/mapping/whatever.
I think it's covered (implicitly) by the current text.  It seems
to me that a more interesting question might be how it fits
into the policy framework.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom