Subject: RE: [midcom] MIDCOM SEmantics: Policy Rule Content

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:41:03 -0700

> > I agree that the double wildcarding goes a bit far, but most of the
> > scenarios in Christian's document require wildcarding at one end or
the
> > other.
> 
> Some wildcarding will be required for sure, but setting the IP address
> and the port number to wildcard is too much wildcarding, i.e.
especially
> the sys admins won't like this.
> A good wildcarding situation would be that the IP address is known,
but
> not the specific port number.

Uh, why are we debating that now? We spent a year writing a requirements
document, and debating such fines points as wildcarding. This is it, and
this is the standard against which various proposals should be metered. 

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:18:03 +0200

> this is the standard against which various proposals should be metered. 

What's the point? I've just mentioned that too much wildcarding won't be 
used in real life and not wether wildcarding is useful at all or not.

Martin

-- 
Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de