Subject: RE: [NSIS] commentson on draft-ietf-nsis-req-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:10:53 +0300

Hi Marcus,

> > I think that we need to seperate off-path requirements from the main
> > document. In my opinion, these are non-requirements for the current
> > charter.  I would support moving these into an appendix,
> > which discusses off-path signaling.
> 
> I still don't see what problem people have with off-path signaling (and I 
> would call tunneling off-path as well). If the working group agrees to 
> remove some of the req fine, let me know which ones.

I can review the current document.  My basic point is that NSIS is not
specifying off-path signaling, therefore NSIS should not make any
specific requirements for off-path signaling.  Lest time I looked,
there wasn't anything I though was especially problematic, but I will
review it.

> If you start talking about NATs this might be an issue for 
> NSIS, whether NSIS must work over NATs or not or don't care.

Right now, I'm happy with not caring.

John

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

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:24:40 +0200

--On Freitag, 5. Juli 2002 13:10 +0300 [email-masked] wrote:

>> I still don't see what problem people have with off-path signaling (and
>> I  would call tunneling off-path as well). If the working group agrees
>> to  remove some of the req fine, let me know which ones.
>

I understand that, and I have not see a requirement opposing to it. 
therefore I asked Georgios to name the reqs which do cover off-path only 
issues.

Marcus

> Right now, I'm happy with not caring.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus