Re: MIDCOM Protocol Semantics <-> SNMPv3

Melinda,

At the design team discussions in Minneapolis we found that
we can group the requirements for the MIDCOM MIB.

There are the requirements defined by the MIDCOM semantics.
The semantics include some lately added features suggested
by Suresh reflecting the existing NAT implementations.  These
requirements constitute one group, the MIDCOM protocol group.

Beyond these, there are requirements that are not written down yet.
Suresh said that a network management applications would require
to get detailed information on which policy rule is liked to what entry
in the NAT MIB. As far as I understood, David was in line with this.
Wes told us that we need to add some means allowing a management
application to set the firewall priority of MIDCOM policies in firewall.
These requirements constitute a group that Martin and I call MIDCOM
server management requirements.

Shall we include these requirements that are not yet written down in
the MIDCOM MIB or shall we exclude them?

I think there are good reasons to support them although they are
rather on the 'MIB plane'.

    Juergen


--On 24.11.2003 9:33 Uhr -0500 Melinda Shore wrote:

> On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 09:03 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
>> and
>> | (2) if yes, will there be an additional "MIB plane" for provisioning
>> | midcom boxes (besides the dynamic configuration actions according
>> | "MIDCOM Protocol Semantics")?
>> That's a question to the WG chair.
>
> I think it's actually a question for somebody else.  Provisioning
> is clearly out of scope for this working group.  There's not any
> work going on that I'm aware of (modulo the NAT MIB, which is NAT-
> specific).
>
> Melinda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom