Subject: RE: [midcom] pin-holes, sessions and flows, oh my!

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:49:09 -0700

I think the idea of a session bundle (a logical association of multiple
sessions or pinholes) is needed to express the sophisticated requirements of
certain agents. It could also be used by MBs to optimize resource
reclamation when the state of a particular session or session-related state
becomes invalid, and by association, the MB can cleanup the bundle as well,
since there would be an implied coupling of all resources related to a
bundle.  There could be exceptions where the entire bundle cleanup might not
be what the agent wants, but this could be handled by the agent not included
certain sessions/pinholes in a bundle.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Duffy
To: Scott Brim; midcom mail-list
Sent: 8/13/01 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [midcom] pin-holes, sessions and flows, oh my!

Hi Scott, see below ...

At 10:31 PM 8/11/01 +0100, Scott Brim wrote:
...
>> Relative to Bob's 7 Aug msg re "resource (p.k.a. pin-hole)
operations"
>> which proposes additional operations such as create and delete, I
would
>> suggest there should be operations to add/delete ruleset-descriptors
and
>> ruleset-actions to rulesets.
>
>I think an action is meaningless without a descriptor, and don't see
any
>benefit in making it possible for an agent to say "install this
>descriptor please" with no associated actions.  I suggest that every
>request must include the complete descriptor it relates to, but can
>add/delete actions.

Yes, Bob Penfield had the same reaction and I told him I agreed ...
The
original point I intended to make was that the agent should be able to
manipulate the descriptor and actions independently, to whatever extent
that make sense.  I think add/delete actions to an existing descriptor
covers it just fine.

>> I do agree we also need the concept resource-bundle (or
ruleset-bundle or
>> foobar-bundle).
>
>Is this more than a descriptor that matches an aggregate?  Do you want
>the middlebox to maintain lists of unrelated rulesets?  As you saw in
>previous mail I'm uncomfortable with that because I don't think it
helps
>the agent appropriately, and burdens the middlebox in new ways.

I see it as a useful but certainly not essential feature of the protocol
that the agent can identify to the mb that multiple pinholes belong to a
grouping such that the agent can then operate on them in bulk, say,
delete
them all at once.  Presumably the agent posesses some application
intelligence that these pinholes bear some relationship to one another.

Whether we require such a feature in the protocol should perhaps be one
of
the discussion items.  I don't recall who if anyone asked for it.  The
recent discussion seesm to have originated with Bob Penfield proposing a
term for referring to this concept.

-Mark

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

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

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:51:26 -0400

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:49:09AM -0700, Randy Turner apparently wrote:
> certain agents. 

Could you be more specific, and/or give an example?