Re: RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

Moisand, Jerome wrote:
> => well, this is kind of the whole point. The architecture currently
> specified acts in the way you described, of course. And I have nothing
> against it, on the contrary! I'm just saying that there are other
> policy-oriented architectures, following the framework defined by the "rap"
> group (and used by the "diffserv" and "ipsp" groups) which would reach the
> same "fundamental goals" for managing middleboxes, using a dynamic policy
> protocol in-between. And I believe we should not exclude such architectures.

Could you demonstrate how other architectures are excluded?  If your 
architecture requires only one agent, then the current design should 
handle it.  Remember, we're not talking about a protocol between the 
middlebox and policy server.  That we leave to others.  However, there 
needs to be a way for a single device to make a singular request to a 
middle box without the need for an intermediary.  That's a charter 
requirement.

Eliot