Subject: RE: IPSP policy model: contidtions and actions

From: "Wang, Cliff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:34:43 -0000

One of the working group items of this morning's policy framework meeting is
to look into the
filter issues to see whether they can be unified. From the implementation
point of view,
a unified approach is a MUST while at the different modeling levels, people
can do what they think
the best approaches. But an unified approach should be the goal, if it can
be achieved.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ricky Charlet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:13 PM
To: "[email-masked], Ricky Charlet"
Subject: IPSP policy model: contidtions and actions

Howdy,	

	I think that the IPSP policy model puts conditions in the wrong
place. 
SAConditions are contained by SARules which are derived from the Policy 
Core Information Model's Policy Rule. The problem I see here is that 
SAConditions are too specific to IPsec. I would rather see a model which 
sets up generic conditions to classify packets. Once a packet is classify 
by generalized conditions, then various actions (ie. ipsec, qos, nat,...) 
could be applied in a list of actions.

	Now, to do this would require tremendous coordination between all
groups 
who might have an interest in packet classification. We know that right 
now, the qos and ipsec ways of modeling conditions or filters or are 
disjoint. So I am making a recommendation which will require a good bit of 
cross WG work and might perhaps move slowly.

	So what would be the benefit?

	If current trends hold, and each group who has an interest in
classifying 
packets develops its own classification method, then we are very close to 
requiring that unnecessarily repetitive classification operations be done 
for each action which should be applied to the packet. It should be easy 
for us to envision examples where several actions (ipsec, qos, nat, 
firewall, ...) should be applied to the same packet. We should obviously 
strive to classify the packet once in implementations.

	Now, I said  ' very close to requiring' . I guess that even if
different 
groups do invent different models of how to do classification, that does 
not necessarily mean that implementations must actually do classifications 
differently. But it certainly would be a confusion situation.

Ricky Charlet
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jason, Jamie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:16:08 -0800

I agree that this is of paramount of importance.  Since we will all be using
at least the "core" filters (like IPs, ports, protocol), it makes sense to
define it outside of each respective model.  I had hoped that by including
filter information in our model it would precipitate a discussion about what
is domain specific and what is generic (I believe that in Oslo, I mentioned
that we would eventually have to confront the issue of useful classes not
already defined by PCIM - and filters would be one of them).

Jamie

> From: Wang, Cliff [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: IPSP policy model: contidtions and actions
> 
>