Subject: [midcom] Another terminology issue

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:05:40 -0400

We need a term for the thing on the middlebox that's created
in response to a request from an agent.

Melinda

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

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:44:44 -0400

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
To: "midcom" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: [midcom] Another terminology issue

> in response to a request from an agent.

Isn't that what we've been calling a ruleset?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:56:41 -0400

>Isn't that what we've been calling a ruleset?

We need to clarify that, I think.  As things currently stand
a ruleset could be the aggregation of stuff describing the
request as carried by the midcom protocol to the middlebox,
or it could be the instantiation of that aggregation as a
pinhole on a firewall or a NAT table entry.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:28:32 -0400

> in response to a request from an agent.

I don't know that this will be possible to name.  We don't want to
require anything of implementations.  There might not be a "thing".  A
single rule could be instantiated in novel ways, and a group of rules
certainly will be.  Since we're doing protocols, perhaps we won't need
to refer to that "thing" often.  If/when we do, we could (1) just talk
about the application of the rules, since that's all we're interested in
(now how that is done); (2) simply say "the instantiation of the ruleset
in the middlebox" or some such phrase (if you only have to say it a few
times you can be long-winded); (3) or anything else along those lines --
to avoid making assumptions about implementation.