RE: 2 updated drafts for Yokohama

["Da Silva, Pedro" <pdasilva@orchestream.com>]

Hi,

Reading the framework doc, first thing that popped to mind is that
outsourcing always has to be present because there is no way to provision a
PEP that has not yet contacted the PDP. That is we always need the PEP to
open, to initiate a config session with the PDP; the PDP cannot proactively
contact a PEP to configure it. So, at least, we need the OPEN message from
the outsourcing model in any situation, be it a core or whatever router.
This is somewhat of a problem for the traditional management model. We
circumvented the prob by configuring the device to contact our PDP after
startup, as COPS allows for this. I believe this is a legacy issue stemming
from RSVP.

Pedro

-----Original Message-----
From: Kwok Ho Chan [mailto:khchan@NortelNetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:19 AM
To: rap@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Kwok Ho Chan
Subject: 2 updated drafts for Yokohama


Hi:
Two updated drafts:
ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/rap/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr-pib-03.txt
and
ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/rap/draft-ietf-rap-cops-frwk-01.txt

have been submitted to Internet-Drafts@ietf.org.
Available here for your reading prior to IETF announcement.
-- Kwok --