Subject: RE: [midcom] Requirements summary: all requirements

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:26:59 +0100

Sorry if this has already been covered ..

Scott,
I think we already discussed that, Elliot reminded us of asynchronous
messages used for notification of events (during the WG session on last
Friday).
I think that Paul raised this as well on Friday.
These asynchronous messages has to be within the protocol.
Thanks
Cedric

>    R10: A middlebox MUST be able to notify a midcom agent of the
>    following events: Session creation, Session termination, MIDCOM
>    protocol failure, Middlebox function failure or any other
>    significant event.  Independently, ICMP error codes can also be
>    useful to notify transport layer failures to the agents.
> 
>            From the framework draft, version -03.
> 
> *** I personaly do not expect such notifications to be communicated
> using midcom protocol. As such, I do not see the need for listing it
> in the requirement document.  - proposal: drop R10

Noted.  Still not discussed by the group.

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

---

From: "'Scott Brim'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:34:00 -0400

Jiri's point is that many such communication requirements *might* be
handled using existing techniques, outside of any new midcom protocol
machinery.  For example, associations could be set up by any
authentication/authorization mechanism, and you wouldn't actually have
to have, e.g., key exchange, in the midcom protocol.  You would just
have to say that such a mechanism has to exist.  "Session" messages of
any sort would not be in the midcom protocol.  Second, if the midcom
protocol "fails", how are you going to use the midcom protocol to signal
that it has?  Finally, the requirement itself suggests using ICMP in
some way as an alternative -- strange if there's an actual requirement.

I haven't put much thought into this.  In any case the requirement as
phrased is vague.  I think it's still open.  Let's wait and deal with it
when Melinda calls for discussion.

..Scott

---

From: Mark Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:50:14 -0400

I had been assuming that when talk about the "midcom protocol", in contexts
such as "requirements for the midcom protocol", that the term encompasses
the whole solution, including any preexisting protocols that are used as
components.

For example, if the chosen solution used ipsec and ike in order to meet the
security requirements, it would still be correct to say "the midcom
protocol provides authentication of...".  No?  Your statement below seems
to evidence a different interpretation.

-Mark