Subject: RE: [Speermint] SPEERMINT Scope

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:52:49 -0400

I would hope that NAT traversal is more of a UNI than NNI issue.

If SBCs are used to do firewall or other functions, hopefully they don't
interfere with the operation of the SF and MF.  They may in fact be
sub-functions of those FEs.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:26 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Speermint] SPEERMINT Scope
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> please decide whether you see the following topics in scope 
> of the working group. This aspect is relevant for those 
> working group members that are currently writing documents:
> 
> a) NAT traversal
> 
> b) Firewall traversal
> 
> c) Quality of Service signaling
> 
> Furthermore, you might want to think whether a discussion 
> about path-coupled or path-decoupled signaling is relevant. 
> Path-decoupled signaling would be relevant for the 
> interaction between SF<->MF. 
> Path-coupled signaling could also be relevant for SF<->MF 
> with respect to authorization.
> 
> (In my opinion the architecture and the message flow document 
> would have to deal with these issues, if they are in scope.)
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> 

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