Subject: [addr-select-dt] Strawman -02 considerations draft

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:34:45 +0000

Hi,

As promised yesterday, here is an updated draft that I hope captures
most of the discussions.   It avoids specifics of policy table formats
and 3484 updates.

The important point I think is whether it is sufficient to frame
discussion in SFO or not, i.e. whether any topics are missing, or
any statements are incorrect.   Also, comments on conclusions would
be useful, as people may scan these over the whole text.

I can issue a final version later for Monday's deadline.

Tim

---

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:25:48 +0900

Hi,

I'm sorry I failed to comment to this draft earlier, but let me
comment one point.

Section 7.5

    It may also be possible to indicate some priority value for a  
policy,
    e.g. the priority of the interface it is received on.  Or if there
    are multiple policies in conflict, a host could simply choose to  
fall
    back to use the default RFC3484 policy.

I found this latter approach interesting to explore.

As I mentioned before, it may be hard to guess multiple receiving  
policies
are in conflict by the end host especially in arms-race case.
Of course, multiple policies for the same prefix case, it is easy to
know the conflict.

Anyway, we should sort out drawbacks and advantages for each approaches.

Regards,

On 2009/03/06, at 1:34, Tim Chown wrote:

> <draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-02.xml><draft-chown-addr- 
> select- 
> considerations-02.txt>_______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt

--
Arifumi Matsumoto
   Secure Communication Project
   NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
   E-mail: [email-masked]