RE: RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

Sure, Melinda, you're absolutely right. 

Well, to start with, please look again to my recent e-mail about the three
types of policy management architecture I listed. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but only one of them appears to be envisioned in the existing midcom
requirements/proposed-architecture. 

The two other ones (with a stateful policy server, trigerred by either a
signaling mechanism ala RSVP/NSIS, or by an application layer interaction)
do not seem to be addressed, or seem to be excluded by some requirements
which I find somewhat debatable, specifically:

<<The Midcom protocol must allow a middlebox to communicate with more
   than one Midcom agent simultaneously.>>

I see this as a fairly major issue, I don't believe we should restrict
ourselves, and exclude policy management architectures which have been
promoted by IETF in the context of the "rap" effort for several years. And
just to clear up the water, I'm certainly not excluding either other
architectures which, I believe, have NOT been envisioned by the "rap" group.

Tx
Jerome

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:39 PM
To: Moisand, Jerome
Cc: 'Harrington, David'; Martin Stiemerling; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [midcom] RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions? 


> I was hesitating to make a similar statement, fearing of being disruptive,
> but I do share the very exact same feeling.

The decision to revise the documents needs to be based on
the identification of *specific* problems with them rather
than a general sense that something is not quite right.

Melinda