Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.2 RSIP - proposal to change score and text

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:49:38 -0400

> RSIP is currently scored a P on this requirement when it should, in
> my opinion, clearly be a P+ or T, depending on whether more actions than
> permit are required by the semantics: if more actions than permit are
> required, they can be supported with backward compatibility by the addition
> of an optional action parameter in appropriate requests, with the default
> value of the parameter being permit if it is omitted.

I'm hoping that the protocols can be evaluated on the basis
of their current defined state, rather than what they might
look like after being extended.

Melinda

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:42:04 -0500

Middlebox experts,

As I have said in a previous e-mail, RSIP clearly may be extended, with
backward compatibility, to support multiple middlebox types.

The differentiation between middlebox types is in the actions that they
support on a ruleset. RSIP (implicitly) only supports a permit action,
while the MIDCOM requirements require multiple possible actions (Although
that may have gone away with recent working group discussions on
semantics.).

I propose that the score of RSIP for this requirement be changed to P+,
and the text changed to:

     If multiple actions beyond RSIP's default "permit" action are
     required to differentiate between middlebox types, an action
     parameter, with a default value of "permit" if omitted to maintain
     backward compatibility, can be added to appropriate requests.

Comments expected and welcome.

Jim