Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.7 RSIP - proposal to change score and text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:24:56 -0500

But whether a given binding "belongs" to a given client or not is a
matter of local policy. :-)

I don't see the difference between an agent ID and a client ID. I think
you can use the existing client ID for whatever use you would put the
agent ID to. But I could be wrong.

Jim

"Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 08/06/2002 01:52:46
PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   James Renkel/MW/US/3Com, "midcom" <[email-masked]>
cc:
Subject:  Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.7 RSIP - proposal to change score
      and text

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
<snip>
> RSIP is currently scored a P on this requirement when it should, in
> my opinion, clearly be a P+ (if not a T).
>
> I propose that the score of RSIP for this requirement be changed to P+,
> and the text changed to:
>
>      RSIP does not explicitly either permit or preclude an operation on
>      a binding being requested by a host other that the host that created
>      the binding. The RSIP semantics would need to be explicitly extended
>      to permit any authorized host to request operations on a binding. No
>      change to the protocol would be required.
>

Although it does not explicitly preclude it, it seems to be implied that it
is not allowed since the RSIP gateway hands out a client IDs and bind IDs,
and there is a BAD_CLIENT_ID and a BAD_BIND_ID whose descriptions state
that
the client is using IDs that don't belong to it.

However, I do see that a new parameter could be added to contain some sort
of agent-id that would be used by both clients to operate on the same rule.

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:30:40 -0500

Melinda,

The issue here as I see is not with "loaning out addresses": that's an
issue for overlapping rulesets. A loaned out address can only be used
in more than one ruleset if the rulesets are consistent with each other,
i.e., they cause no confusion to the middlebox as it passes, and
possibly modifies the addresses in, packets containing the loaned out
address.

I think inconsistent or conflicting (except possibly for their actions,
if we have more than one action) rulesets have to be precluded.

I think what we're really talking about here is operations, e.g., extend
the lease time, on a ruleset from a client other than the client that
created the ruleset. Whether that is permitted or not is a local policy
issue, possibly dependent on the identities of the clients involved.

I believe RSIP has all the machinery necessary to either allow or not
such requests.

Jim

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 08/05/2002 05:47:12 PM

To:   James Renkel/MW/US/3Com
cc:   midcom <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.7 RSIP - proposal to change score
      and text

>      change to the protocol would be required.

The problem with this is that it's inconsistent with the
loaning-an-address model that RSIP uses.  I think it's fair
to say that it would be a not insignificant change to the
semantics of the RSIP protocol if addresses were to be
loanable to more than one endpoint simultaneously.

Melinda