Subject: RE: [midcom] Protocol Eval: 2.1.3 Middlebox can relate to multipl e Agents

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:16:58 -0500

Martin,

We have talked about both of these before:

For MEGACO, since we've not heard any response from the MEGACO supporters
substantiating that this VMG model (which is defined by MEGACO) is
appropriately applied to this scenario, I propose that we change this to a P
(it had been a T/P in the last version and I had changed to P+ when we added
that new category).

For COPS, again this was a T/P in the -00 version, and feedback on the list
indicated that this is compliant per RFC 3084 on COPS-PR, which exlicitly
mentions this:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/midcom/current/msg02312.htm
l
(Note: my response to how this was handled in the updated document is at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/midcom/current/msg02334.htm
l )

What I would propose to clarify this one going forward is to add some text
that this is specific to COPS-PR.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [midcom] Protocol Eval: 2.1.3 Middlebox can relate to multiple
Agents

- MEGACO
  There is editor's note about the VMG concept. Can somebody put some 
light on this issue, whether MEGACO can effectively work with multiple 
agents?

- COPS
The text says, that COPS specifies that one PEP uses only one PDP and 
that the use of multiple PDPs isn't precluded.
But the only hint that I've found which allows a PEP to communicate with 
  multiple PDPs is in RFC 2748, section 2.3 "Communication". This 
section says that PEPs that support several different client types can 
open several TCP connections to different PDPs. But in the case of only 
one client type, I seems that only one Agent can be reached.

So my vote for COPS and section 2.1.3 is 'Failed', or is there any trick 
of that I'm not aware?

-- 
Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

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

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

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:15:56 +0200

> (it had been a T/P in the last version and I had changed to P+ when we added

Ok, I agree with changing this to a 'P'.
For the MEGACO supporters: Can you please do a statement on this issue?

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/midcom/current/msg02334.htm

Sorry for duplicating this thread.

> that this is specific to COPS-PR.

Ok, that would be great, since only COPS-PR support this.

-- 
Martin Stiemerling