on 2007-02-16 04:44 Narayanan, Vidya said the following:
> I understand where you stand on the topic now and I would agree with
> some of it and disagree with some other parts of it. Mainly,
> irrespective of whether a transport protocol or extension headers or
> mobility options are used to carry this information, I do not think we
> should be aiming at a single solution for host-to-router and
> router-to-router exchanges of filter rules, as I do believe the
> requirements and security models are quite different in the two cases.
> So, I think setting the scope at this level will be useful for starters.
I don't see any reason why there has to be different solutions for
host-to-router and router-to-router, but I also think that it's premature
to have a strong view on this until we've agreed both that the work is
worth doing in general and collected the requirements.
My primary interest right now is to see if it makes sense to work on a
common solution, or whether we should go back and complete the monami6
work for the needs expressed in the monami6 charter and base documents
only.
I think there is enough commonality with the needs of the protocols
mentioned earlier (HIP/Shim6/Mobike) that a common solution could be
considered for these.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
