Once we go into IETF review we can expect to hear from
people involved with a number of different working groups,
and I have little doubt that we'll be hearing from people
involved with policy work in a number of different WGs.
Our relationship with OPES is unique in that while our
architecture is different and our goals are very different,
the details overlap considerably. However, just because
we're keeping a particular eye on OPES and vice-versa doesn't
preclude any participant calling attention to what we're
up to in any other working group.
Melinda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fleischman, Eric W"
<Eric(_dot_)Fleischman(_at_)PSS(_dot_)Boeing(_dot_)com>
To: <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; <midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "'Melinda Shore'"
<mshore(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; "'Michael W. Condry'"
<condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
Cc: <Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [midcom] policy & duration
Michael,
You and I are in harmony on this. I'm sure that we all can agree that
there are a large number of other WGs which have relevant insight into
elements of the Midcom problem domain, which makes OPES far from unique, and
therefore inappropriate as a target for a special WG-to-WG relationship.
Take, for example, the many other groups addressing elements of policy
including the Policy WG, AAA WG, AFT WG, CDI WG, the IRTF's AAAA WG, and
many, many others.
--Eric
----------
From: Michael W. Condry[SMTP:condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:53 AM
To: Fleischman, Eric W; lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'Melinda Shore'
Cc: Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [midcom] policy & duration
I agree about the dissimilar problem space.
However, I still stand by the position that IF there areas of problem
overlap,
such as some policy matters, that ignoring each others requirements
is a beneficial strategy (or "Dating Relationship").
At 02:58 AM 8/8/2001, Fleischman, Eric W wrote:
I see OPES and midcom addressing very dissimilar problems. I do not
view
the problems of enhancing web services (OPES) as directly related to
the
problems of opening pinholes through perimeter devices in a manner
consistent with enterprise policies (midcom). I therefore do not think
that OPES has a role in providing feedback to midcom documents that is
any
more relevant than the insights coming from other IETF WGs. Thus, even
a
"dating relationship" is unnecessary.
----------
From: Melinda Shore[SMTP:mshore(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:24 AM
To: lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Michael W.
Condry
Cc: Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [midcom] policy & duration
From: "Michael W. Condry" <condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
To: <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; <midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: [midcom] policy & duration
Do you think that alignment between OPES policy and MidCom policy
concepts should be applied where appropriate? If so, should the
document
not reflect this?
I do think that there's value in trying to keep these aligned,
and it would probably be useful to get some feedback on our
documents from OPES. In the interests of keeping our work
moving forward, it would probably be best to regard midcom
and OPES as dating rather than married.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom