Subject: [midcom] Protocol Eval

From: "Louis-Nicolas Hamer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:05:18 -0400

Mary, All,

I've been through the comparison draft (a bit late, sorry) and I feel there
is an inconsistency
with regards to the COPS evaluation in requirement 2.1.1.
Currently, it is put as a F. But I believe a P would be much more
appropriate. I re-read the definitions
provided for F, P, P+, T and according to the definitions it is clear that P
is exactly the case for COPS in 2.1.1.
If you read the text for COPS in 2.1.1, it is said that only part of the
requirement is not met (the directionality)
but nothing prevents us from going around this problem by defining local
policies at the PEP. Yes, this would be
inconsistent with the COPS framework, but that is exactly what the
definition of P is.

I believe the same comment applies to Megaco.

The draft, as it stand, would be inconsistent since other protocols were
graded in-line with the F/P/T/P+ definitions,
while COPS and megaco (in 2.1.1) are clearly not.

Cheers,
L-N