Subject: [midcom] Semantics document, closing open items

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:43:38 -0500

1) The wildcarding proposal was uncontroversial at the
meeting and appears to be uncontroversial here, so the
consensus is clearly to allow wildcarding.

2) There was confusion about the two-step reservation
process at the meeting and there's been little discussion
about it here, so I'm not going to consider this resolved.
The proposal is to have a two-step reservation process, with
separate steps for requesting the reservation and enabling
the reservations.  Unless there are objections over the next
several days, the proposal will stand as is.  I hope the
people who had issues with this at the meeting will speak
up.

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

---

From: Jiri Kuthan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:28:54 +0100

I'm neither saying it's needed nor it's not. I'm just wondering
if there is any argument WHY it's needed.

The point is that primarily, the open-or-not decision is drawn
from willingness of the party on the protected middlebox side.
Making it additionaly depend on what the party on the other 
side thinks buys little additional security. That's the case
with SIP, imho. If we split "get-NAT-translations-and-open-
pinholes" in two phases, we just add a contraint "don't open
if the public side user does not wish so". Are there scenarios
which add more security through that?

-Jiri