Subject: Re: PolTerm Draft

From: Matthew Condell <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2000 13:40:26 -0000

>1. We should then add a "policy negotiations" term for QoS (given that
>    QoS does not assume or encourage E-2-E negotiations).
>2. We should explain the context of this E-2-E resolution (security)

The purpose of the terminology draft is to present terms that are
used in different policy areas, so that the terms are used consistently
across different areas.  It is not suggesting any architecture or 
imposing any requirements on any area.  It is just presenting 
terminology to use in any area that requires it.

>3. Have you evaluated the implications of such E-2-E approach? When
>    traffic crosses N domains, are you suggesting that all N domains
>    find a common ground? Sounds awfully non-scalable to me.
>
>    I always thought QoS is SIMPLER than security, and I can't see how
>    this would scale for QoS, not to mention security.

The purpose of E-2-E policy resolution for security is to address
scalability problems with IPsec.

>Do you have an example?

Try draft-richardson-spsp-requirements-00.txt and 
draft-keromytis-spsp-arch-00.txt

A draft describing a solution was submitted to the IPsec WG, but
that has recently expired.  A revised version will be submitted
to the IPSP WG in the near future.

Matt Condell
BBN Technologies