Subject: RE: [midcom] Delete R48?

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:36:02 -0700

Melinda,

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. Stating it allows
the firewall to check whether the opening conforms to policy, e.g. "no
video calls during business hours"; it also allows the firewall, at a
later stage, to check that the traffic profile is consistent with the
stated purpose.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: Abdallah Rayhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:45:51 -0400 (EDT)

This brings to mind the relationship between the midcom agent
and the policy server. I remember that being out of scope.
However, adding more hooks to convey policy information
that can be communicated indirectly to the the policy server
is one way around this. I am not in favor of such an approach 
but it is worth the the thought.

regards
Abdallah

> later stage, to check that the traffic profile is consistent with the

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca