Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-polk-ieprep-scenarios-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:23:08 EDT

James,

Much of what is described under "topologies" is not IEPREP specific and could 
be referenced by other things.
I would suggest to structure this as:

2.0 Topologies (generic without reference to IEPREP)
3.0 IEPREP stuff (intro to IEPREP, how IEPREP and authentication is mapped 
into topologies, etc.)
4.0 Other things like "MLPP" might go here?

I'm looking for other descriptions of these same 4 scenarios. I would have 
thought there was already an agreed set in the IETF. TIPHON calls them 
"scenarios" as follows:
0 IP-IP
1 IP-SCN
2 SCN-IP
3 SCN-IP-SCN

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:46:21 -0500

At 08:23 AM 9/23/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote: 
>
> James, 
>
> Much of what is described under "topologies" is not IEPREP specific

You're right. I was only trying to get people within this WG to consider 2
things (mainly): that there were 4 topologies at a minimum to deal with in
discussions, and to actually name them to give people a common reference to
convey a thought about when their thought isn't universal to all 4 topologies.

I added a few requirements statements (which Kimberly slapped my hand for
including), and a few implications regarding where authentication and
authorization could affect 'things' in IEPREP (which Kimberly is open to me
leaving in but in a separate sub-section per topology).

I started writing this and realized there were a number of issues that no one
in IEPREP has dealt with yet in a doc - that's why I added the text. I have
offered to remove all text except strictly topology related, though I hint at
wanting to see the text moved to another/any doc.

>
>  and could be referenced by other things. 

interesting... I'll give the above 2 some thought

> 4.0 Other things like "MLPP" might go here? 

I don't know in a pure topology worded doc how MLPP would differ from IEPREP
(so I currently don't know why the distinction). Can you offer an example?

> thought there was already an agreed set in the IETF. 

I ran this ID past Scott Bradner before submitting it - and he didn't mention
anything of the sort. And if anyone should know of an agreed upon set, I'd
think he would be high on the list; therefore I don't know or think so.

>
> TIPHON calls them "scenarios" as follows: 
> 0 IP-IP 
> 1 IP-SCN 
> 2 SCN-IP 
> 3 SCN-IP-SCN 

I don't know TIPHON (as I've not gone to their meetings). I do know that
there's a little tension between the 2 organizations because TIPHON believes
(and has publicly stated) they can alter IETF efforts. For example, TIPHON last
year stated they were suggesting alterations to SIP, but not through any IETF
lists or meeting, but by writing their own docs to that effect. The IETF got a
little peeved.

Also, my list of topologies is based on that email Scott sent out to the 7 of
us a few months ago regarding the DSN R-P Namespace ID you and I wrote, but
were told not to publish (the one that Allison freaked out about so much)

> Artel 

cheers,
James 

              *************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than 
                         they are willing to allow for others"

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