Subject: RE: [midcom] Terminology discussion - status

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:43:04 -0400

At 11:29 AM 9/10/01 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>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.

An action spec is a "command" (install, delete, modify, etc.).
I still don't like this approach, but there has been some feeling 
for having commands as parameters rather than as, uh, commands.

Melinda

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

---

From: Mark Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:42:42 -0400

>for having commands as parameters rather than as, uh, commands.

Melinda, that was not my understanding or intent.

Although we haven't defined "command", I infer from your context that you
are refering to "commands" (install, delete, modify, etc.) an Agent might
send to a middlebox.  The Action spec is *not* such a "command".

   "Action Spec: Description of the middlebox treatment/service to
    be applied to a set of packets."

Action spec is part of a ruleset and says what the middlebox should do to
packets that match the filter spec associated with the ruleset.  Action
spec is not a command sent from an agent to a middlebox, nor does it
contain a command sent from an agent to a middlebox.  I would expect that a
Ruleset would be an *argument* to such a command

--Mark

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:01:21 -0400

What is wrong with commands?

(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:05 -0400

never mind. I agree with Mark & Christian. The "actions" are not commands.
Commands are the things in the protocol that manipulate rulesets.

(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [midcom] Terminology discussion - status

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:34:34 -0400

> Commands are the things in the protocol that manipulate rulesets.

I sense confusion in the group.

You're talking about the protocol.  Right.  The protocol contains
various predicates including sets of rules the sender wishes to see
installed.  At that point the rulesets are not "commands".

However, other people are talking about "actions" in the middlebox.
Once a ruleset is installed in the middlebox, the middlebox may
represent it any way it likes, but for every packet which the filtering
selects, some kind of action is performed (it might be a "null" action,
i.e. a drop).

If "action" is causing this much trouble, let's go back to Dave Oran's
formulation: a ruleset has one or more "matching rules" and one or more
"transform rules".  That would satisfy me.  It might be my fault that we
moved away from it in the beginning because I was trying to use simple
terms.

..Scott