Re: RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

> 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. 

Policy management is orthogonal to the midcom protocol.  We
assume that there's a policy component but we're not
specifying it.  What's envisioned is that there is one, but
the questions of where it's located, what policy decisions
are negotiated, and specifically what it will look like are
completely outside the scope of the current set of
deliverables.

> <<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. 

I doubt very much that you'd have luck finding *one*
participant who thinks it sufficient to have a middlebox
that's only capable of communicating with one agent.  In the
context of VoIP applications, as well as many others, it is
absolutely mandatory that more than one agent be able to
send requests to a middlebox.

Melinda