Subject: [midcom] More requirements decided

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:28:09 -0400

Drop:
R44
R74
R68

We still haven't come to resolution on R15.  We need text that
describes the proposed requirement and a decision on that text.
So far we haven't been able to reach agreement on what the
problem is that's being described.

Melinda

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

---

From: Mark Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 12:02:56 -0400

>problem is that's being described.

I though we were pretty close.  We had this:

[Bob Penfield]
>> The protocol MUST support the ability of an agent to install a ruleset
>> that includes multiple types of middlebox functions (e.g. firewall and
>> NAT).

[Scott Brim]
>Rulesets include specifications of actions.  A ruleset does not include
>a "function" in the sense you seem to be using the term -- for example a
>firewall function.  A ruleset may include a rule which would be used as
>input to a firewall function.  
>
>I don't think the exact words matter much, as long as they don't
>thoroughly confuse the WG that comes after us.  That's all I'm trying to
>avoid.  

How about this then:

The protocol MUST support the ability of an agent to install a ruleset that
contains Action Specs governing multiple types of middlebox functions (e.g.
firewall and NAT).

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:35:58 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Duffy" <[email-masked]>
To: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>; "midcom" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [midcom] More requirements decided

> The protocol MUST support the ability of an agent to install a ruleset
that
> contains Action Specs governing multiple types of middlebox functions
(e.g.
Why do you limit it to the action?

s/Action Specs/Filters Specs and Action Specs/

OR

... install a ruleset that governs multiple types of ....

---

From: Mark Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:05:27 -0400

>> contains Action Specs governing multiple types of middlebox functions

[Bob:]
>s/Action Specs/Filters Specs and Action Specs/

I limited it to the action because I believe that the Filter Spec is
*independent* of any of the middlebox functions/actions.  I.e. The Ruleset
wouuld say for Filter Spec(s) mumble, do this NAT action, this firewall
action, and this foobar action.

>... install a ruleset that governs multiple types of ....

That's fine and in fact I prefer it because it is more succint!

[Christian:]
>I would rather not have "functions", but "actions":
>
>that contains Action Specs governing multiple types of middlebox actions
>(e.g. firewall and NAT).
>
>-- Christian Huitema

That also sound fine to me.

If we integrate Bob's and Christian's:

R15': The protocol MUST support the ability of an agent to install a
ruleset that governs multiple types of middlebox actions (e.g. firewall and
NAT).