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

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:47:55 -0700

I was specifically thinking about something like an H323 ALG/agent, that
would have to express the relationship between multiple flows for a
particular session being negotiated. The same could apply to SIP I would
imagine.  It would be nice if an agent could "aggregate" control information
across the MIDCOM protocol. The more individual streams that make up an
application "session", the more valuable the aggregate control over the app
session would be. Regarding resource reclamation, it might be nice to have
the MB "cleanup" a bundle in which one of the streams (probably a control
connection) is closed. If the MB does not have enough app intelligence to
determine whether or not "all" pinholes should be closed, then it could just
notify the agent, and the agent could close out the "bundle" with one
protocol operation.

These are just off the top of my head, but my experience with H323 and NAT
seemed to indicate that this functionality might be a good idea.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim
To: 'midcom mail-list '
Sent: 8/13/01 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [midcom] pin-holes, sessions and flows, oh my!

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

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

_______________________________________________
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:03:31 -0400

> seemed to indicate that this functionality might be a good idea.

Is R46 a good enough bullet?  I don't mean, does it say everything you
want to say, but rather, is it a good enough placeholder to make sure
that what you want to see discussed will be discussed (when we finally
get around to it)?