Subject: [midcom] comments on latest rev.

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:08:43 -0700

Hi,

I'll try and keep this short:

R31:  too vague.  remove.

R39:  Motherhood and apple pie.  Remove.

R2 and R41 are redundant with one another.

R68:  s/confidentiality protection/authentication mechanisms and &/

R70:

Is this redundant with R69, given the modification to R68?

R73:  not vague enough ;-)  I recommend replace with the following:

...MUST provide mechanisms that robustly protect against hostile attempts
at unauthorized access and denial of service.

R5:

This is in large part redundant with R3b.  What's not redundant is simply
wrong.  What is the response to a delete? "one down one to go"?

Similarly R79.  Remove.

R80:

Why is it not an error to allocate overlapping resources in the first
place?

R14:

Going beyond the following is beyond scope of a protocol:

>       The MIDCOM protocol must support multiple transactions over the same
>       transport connection.

--
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]

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