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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:51:47 -0500

Middlebox experts,

As I have said in a previous e-mail, RSIP implicitly leaves to local
policy the legality of operations on a binding by a host other than
the one that created it.

Although no change to the RSIP syntax is required, the RSIP
specification should be clarified on this issue. Perhaps this would be
considered a (backward compatible) change to the RSIP semantics.

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.

Comments expected and welcome.

Jim

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:47:12 -0400

>      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

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:41:43 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>

> loanable to more than one endpoint simultaneously.

I think midcom requires a not insignificant change to the semantics of any
protocol we choose. Megaco has the same problem with having multiple agents
working on the same termination, and it is rated a P.

One essential element of the midcom framework is that a proxy can be the
agent (as opposed to the end point). The idea behind 2.2.7 is that multiple
proxies are "equivalent". There are still only one pair of endpoints in the
communication session being enabled in the middlebox.  A "loaned address" is
the same as a binding/pinhole. With any midcom protocol, the binding/pinhole
is "loaned" to the agent.

I'm assuming that we're talking about using the RSIP messages to communicate
between the agent and middlebox and that the "rules" instantiated do not
define "tunnels", but NAT-bindings and firewall-pinholes. The whole idea of
using the proxy-agent was so that endpoint would not have to participate.

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:52:46 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
<snip>
>      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.