Subject: RE: Relay Draft Issues Summary (#1 design goal of draft)

From: "Mistretta, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 06:33:43 -0400

>> ...The proposed work could be divided in one or more drafts: A framework
draft
>> that discusses the possible solutions and specific drafts about each
>> solution.  What you guys think? 
>
>This sounds reasonable.  I think we have been saying that other options are
>available and that could be defined.  The framework draft would give a
>nice reference of these options (of which the relay draft would be one of
>several - assuming someone is interested enough to draft the others).

I thought about this a bit over the weekend.  Rienaldo's outline looks like
a very good way to define the problem, sort out the issues, and analyze each
proposed solution.  But I don't think it would be good to foster different
mechanisms that do mostly the same thing.  I'm sure we'd all agree that
there's not much use in specifying something that wouldn't be used anywhere.
In this case I think we should aim for a single solution that fits all needs
and performs well.  I've talked a little bit about the proxy idea.  If we
are already absolutely certain that there are well thought out reasons why
it can't be that single approach, and if we understand and are willing to
deal with the aforementioned issues with relay, then I'm not sure it makes
sense to spec proxy out any further.

Tom

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:40:28 -0700

Hello Tom,

But we still need to mention it on the framework draft, maybe some 6 months
from now we find out proxy was a much better solution, or a better solution
for some kind of deployment. I think the exercise of writing the framework
draft is going to give us much more knowledge to discuss the two solutions.

Borrowing some terms from the PPVPN WG, the framework draft is a "horizontal
draft" discussing not in-depth all the available solutions. Now, If nobody
wants to write a "vertical" draft about the Proxy idea, that's another
decision. 

The "vertical" draft about relay is the one Ron has been working one. 

regards,

Reinaldo 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mistretta, Tom [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:34 AM
> To: 'Ron da Silva'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Relay Draft Issues Summary (#1 design goal of draft)
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Mistretta, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:49:48 -0400

Hi Reinaldo,
 
OK, I can see the value taken in those contexts.  As I implied, I would do a
proxy draft if there was sufficient interest (not seeing it right now
though).  
 
I think I'd like to see Mark weigh in on this direction.  Let us know
how/when you are moving forward with it and if you want any input from me.
 
Tom
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:40 PM
To: Mistretta, Tom; 'Ron da Silva'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Relay Draft Issues Summary (#1 design goal of draft)

Hello Tom, 

regards, 

Reinaldo