Technical Summary
This memo specifies semantics for a Middlebox Communication (MIDCOM)
protocol to be used by MIDCOM agents for interacting with middleboxes
such as firewalls and Network Address Translators (NATs). The
semantics discussion does not include any specification of a concrete
syntax or a transport protocol. However the implementation of the
sematics in draft-ietf-midcom-mib does require the sematics description
as normative reference. Therefore the semantics declaration is
reclassified from informational to proposed standard
Working Group Summary
There is consensus in the WG to reclassify this document to proposed
standard to provide the necessary normative language for
draft-ietf-midcom-mib.
Protocol Quality
Magnus Westerlund reveiwed the document for IESG. The memo is already
published as RFC 3989 with informational status.
Note to RFC Editor
Please issue a new RFC based on RFC 3989 with the below changes and
obsolete RFC 3989.
Title page:
Change: The boilerplate will be required to change to the one for
standard tracks documents.
In section 2.1.1:
OLD:
- Asynchronous transactions allowing the middlebox to change state
without a request by an agent.
NEW:
- Asynchronous transactions allowing to report state changes that
have not been requested by the agent.
In section 2.1.6:
OLD:
- Optional interface-specific policy rule support: not
supported or supported
NEW:
- Support for interface-specific policy rules
OLD:
2.1.8. Conformance
The MIDCOM requirements in [MDC-REQ] demand capabilities of the
MIDCOM protocol that are met by the set of transactions specified
below. However, an actual implementation of a middlebox may support
only a subset of these transactions. The set of announced supported
NEW:
2.1.8. Conformance
The MIDCOM requirements in [MDC-REQ] demand capabilities of the
MIDCOM protocol that are met by the set of transactions specified
below. However, it is not required that an actual implementation of a
middlebox supports all these transactions. The set of announced
supported
OLD:
3. Conformance Statements
A protocol definition complies with the semantics defined in section
2 if the protocol specification includes all specified transactions
with all their mandatory parameters. However, concrete
implementations of the protocol may support only some of the optional
transactions, not all of them. Which transactions are required for
compliance is different for agent and middlebox.
NEW:
3. Conformance Statements
A protocol definition complies with the semantics defined in section
2 if the protocol specification includes all specified transactions
with all their mandatory parameters. However, it is not required that
an actual implementation of a middlebox supports all these
transactions.
Which transactions are required for compliance is different for agent
and middlebox.
IESG Note
(Insert IESG Note here)
IANA Note
(Insert IANA Note here)