[security-area] Agenda Firewall Issues BOF - GGF13

[Leon Gommans]

Mike,

Thanks for raising the question. The answer will depend on
the charter discussion. Anybody is welcome to comment.

This is my personal view:

If you look for example the IETF Middlebox work, NATs
were part of the charter.

An answer may also depend on the outcome of the question
if this should be a Research Group or a Working Group.
A WG charter needs to be very focussed and
our Area Directors may prefer a limited the scope with
clearly defined deliverables. The scope may therefore be limited
to Firewalls. There is also a BoF that wants to look at VPN's.
A RG could pursue a wider range of middlebox services
such as mentioned in RFC 3303.
 
Kind regards .. Leon Gommans.

 

Mike 'Mike' Jones wrote:

>Would it be useful to discuss NAT at the same time as firewalls?
>
>I think NAT raises some issues that are similar to firewalls.  I'm coming
>from an AFS in globus2 based grids perspective and have also seen clashes
>between globus-IO and NAT.
> 
>I'm afraid I'm not able to goto Korea to stick my hand up and ask the
>question there, sorry!
>
>Cheers,
>Mike
>
>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Mike Helm wrote:
>
>  
>
>>LG, can you put me on the agenda?  I'd like to mention
>>3 things (provided the material all shows up :^) that
>>might be of interest: some MPLS work at ESnet, a PNNL localhost-based
>>firewall solution that should be grid friendly, and
>>an interesting use-case from Fusion Grid (some have seen
>>this, at last GGF).
>>
>>Thanks, ==mwh
>>Michael Helm
>>ESnet/LBNL
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/security-area/attachments/20050308/37e2cec7/attachment.htm