Georgios, I think "Should be able to work" is good. Whether it will actually work between any two particular inter-operator domains is left to the decision of the particular operators.
Regarding DMM will require security, I have already rephrased REQ-6 to "shall consider security," which is probably general enough. So, my suggested text is the following: REQ4: Compatibility The DMM solution SHOULD be able to work between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution SHOULD preserve backward compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:43 PM To: h chan; [email protected] Cc: Peter McCann; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Hi Anthony, Hi Charlie, Regarding the operation between the trusted administrative domains, I think that the DMM solution SHOULD be able to work between trusted administrative domains, and not only "enable working" between such domains. So the first sentence can become: "The DMM solution SHOULD work between trusted administrative domains" Regarding the issues posted by Charlie: >- You cannot guarantee inter-working with completely arbitrary security >measures. >- I am confident that the DMM solution will require security. Thus, the >"SHOULD" > in the above text is somehow incorrect. Do you mean that the following sentence: "SHOULD allow inter-working with the security measures deployed between these domains."" should change to: "MUST allow inter-working with the security measures deployed between these domains."" should change to:"? Best regards, Georgios ________________________________________ Van: [email protected] [[email protected]] namens h chan [[email protected]] Verzonden: vrijdag 8 juni 2012 2:07 Aan: Charles E. Perkins CC: Peter McCann; [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility I think the intention is to allow interworking between 2 operators' network domains if the operators choose to do so. Yet operators may not choose to do that. So the DMM solution can only enable such choice. Also, it can do that only if the security measures allow. How about the following: The DMM solution SHOULD enable working between trusted administrative domains when allowed by the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution SHOULD preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:56 PM To: h chan Cc: [email protected]; Peter McCann; jouni korhonen Subject: Re: [DMM] draft requirement REQ-4: compatibility Hello folks, On 6/5/2012 10:26 AM, h chan wrote: > Replacing REQ-4 with the following: > > REQ-4: compatibility > The DMM solution MUST NOT break when being deployed between trusted > administrative domains and SHOULD allow inter-working with the security > measures deployed between these domains. Existing network deployment and end > hosts also SHOULD NOT break. I understand the intent, but specifying that something "SHOULD NOT break" seems almost like berating the children. How about: "The DMM solution is required to work between trusted administrative domains and SHOULD allow inter-working with the security measures deployed between these domains. Furthermore, the DMM solution must preserve backwards compatibility with existing network deployment and end hosts." I have two more issues: - You cannot guarantee inter-working with completely arbitrary security measures. - I am confident that the DMM solution will require security. Thus, the "SHOULD" in the above text is somehow incorrect. I'm not sure exactly how best to resolve these latter two issues, but before I try to make a resolution, I thought it would be good to raise the issue on this list for possible further discussion. -- Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
