Subject: RE: [midcom] Terminology discussion - status

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:29:12 -0700

> >I think that "action spec" is too restrictive. You want something
> like
> >"attributes." Consider as a possible attribute the identity of the
> agent
> >who created the ruleset; this is a useful parameter for access
> control,
> >but it definitely does not define an "action."
> 
> See the following definition which says the ruleset may have auxiliary
> info
> besides filter specs and action specs, including "owning agent"
> (shorthand
> for "agent who created the ruleset").  Does that address your point?
> Is it
> important to you that these other types of attributes be part of the
> "Action spec" vs just being part of the overall ruleset?
> 
> I fear this is all getting a bit too detailed and specific, given that
> the
> objective here is to define terms for use in requirements/framework
> and not
> to define the protocol.

Frankly, I don't know what the action spec is. I have a hard time
instantiating it, and I suspect it is useless in the main application,
firewall and nat traversal.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:54:43 -0400

> firewall and nat traversal.

Examples:  "Let the packet through" (that's your standard firewall
pinhole).  "Translate the source address/port to 192.69.1.201/42".
"Encapsulate in XML and divert to that OPES service over there" (oops,
did I say that?).  This is not unusual stuff.  Think in terms of sed.