[Nsi-wg] Issue 41 in ogf-nsi-project: Do we replace the replyTo field with a topology/NSA configuration lookup?

[ogf-nsi-project at googlecode.com]

Comment #7 on issue 41 by thost... at gmail.com: Do we replace the replyTo  
field with a topology/NSA configuration lookup?
http://code.google.com/p/ogf-nsi-project/issues/detail?id=41

I agree that the requesterNSA cannot be used for any authN / authZ. The MTL  
/ protocol layer can provide a set of attributes, e.g., IP, certificate  
identity, etc. These can then be used for authorization. We cannot really  
use anything in the message for authN / authZ.

I also have hard time seeing what we actually need the requeserNSA and  
providerNSA field for. They seem descriptive / informational to me.

In general, the protocol seems to be designed around the assumption that  
theere is a more or less static set of NSI agents, which only communicates  
with each other. This is assumption is starting to fall apart as we are  
starting to use the protocol. There will be clients for querying (e.g., the  
visualization tool), and it is likely that there will be some short-lived  
clients requesting connections. There will probably be more. An NSI agent  
will not always be communicating with another NSI agent.