Subject: Re: PolTerm Draft

From: Matthew Condell <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2000 14:03:26 -0000

>- Policy resolution says:
>
>   "When presented with policies from multiple policy domains, through which
>   a communication must pass, it is necessary to find a common policy
>   supported by all the domains".
>
>   I don't remember seeing anywhere (in any of the architectural docs)
>   such a weird End-to-End policy consensus (negotiations, resolution,
>   whatever). Such an approach can only makes sense for micro-flows
>   (RSVP style) and I don't think anyone suggest resolving policy across
>   multiple domains for each micro flow. The model we are familiar assume
>   bilateral policy negotiation/resolution. I suggest the following text
>   instead:

End-to-End policy resolution is is used in the security policy 
management area, which is why this term is included in the draft.

Matt Condell
BBN Technologies

---

From: Shai Herzog <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:55 -0500

I see. But this is still broken... ;-)

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)
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.

Do you have an example?

Shai

>management area, which is why this term is included in the draft.

__________________________________________________________________
Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO   IPHighway Inc.   Tel : (914) 654-4810
55 New York Avenue                            Main: (508) 620-1141
Framingham, MA 01701                          Fax : (212) 656-1006