Subject: FW: [midcom] More bullets

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:57:30 +0100

Hi Melinda,
I think that R74 is useful in case the application requires good
reliability.
Take the case where 2 redundant Midcom Agents (MA) handles a flows for
several hundred of
subscribers. If one MA dies, the other will control the rulesets but you
need a mechanism
for the redundant MA (now active) to synchronize states with the Middlebox.
I didn't see any requirement covering state synchronization, this could be
part of the how to do hand-over
hidden behind R79, but this is not that implicit. Is there anybody in the WG
that sees R74 as how to for 
R79?
We could change R74 to be :
The midcom protocol MUST allow synchronization of states between the Midcom
agent and the Middlebox

Thanks
Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:44 PM
To: midcom
Subject: [midcom] More bullets

R15: A Midcom agent ought to be able to have a single MIDCOM
        connection with a middlebox and use the MIDCOM interface on the
        middlebox to interface with different middlebox functions on the
        same middlebox interface.

I'd like to drop the trailing "interface" on this one and propose
keeping this.

R44: The protocol MUST permit the expression of direction to be
        associated with a pin-hole.  The direction MUST be specified in
        terms that apply to external view of the Middlebox.  This
        directionality shall be expressed as 'in', 'out' or 'loopback'
        (meaning both 'in' and 'out' of the same side of the same
        Middlebox realm).

The proposal is to drop this: we've already accepted R82, which gives
broad leeway in descriptions of filtering rules.

R74: A Midcom Agent MUST be able to discover what resources are
        available on a middlebox.

Proposal: drop.  We've already discussed meaningful error messages.

R68: The Midcom Protocol MUST allow for preservation of the control
        messages once the association has been established.

Proposal: drop.

Once we get these settled we'll tackle semantics.

Melinda

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

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:44:49 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
To: "Melinda Shore (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Midcom IETF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: FW: [midcom] More bullets

> The midcom protocol MUST allow synchronization of states between the
Midcom
Doesn't R23 cover that?

R23: The Midcom Protocol MUST enable the Middlebox and any associated
     Midcom Agents to establish known and stable state.  This must
     include the case of power failure, or other failure, where the
     protocol must ensure that any resources used by a failed element
     can be released.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:18:24 -0400

R74 is already dropped.  We won't be reconsidering it.

Melinda