Re: [EME] EME charter

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 13 November 2006 19:04 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh6v-0007z8-AA; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:04:49 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh6u-0007yt-10 for eme@irtf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:04:48 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjh6p-0007I7-Lf for eme@irtf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:04:48 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (priras01.isi.edu [128.9.176.219]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kADJ46gh002702; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:04:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4558C1A4.1080003@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:04:04 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Saikat Guha <saikat@cs.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [EME] EME charter
References: <4557D5ED.9030807@ecs.umass.edu> <4558080D.60303@isi.edu> <1163441212.4894.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4558B979.8040300@isi.edu> <1163444003.4894.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1163444003.4894.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: eme@irtf.org
X-BeenThere: eme@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <eme.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/eme>
List-Post: <mailto:eme@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1134617611=="
Errors-To: eme-bounces@irtf.org


Saikat Guha wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 10:29 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> To the extent that the lack of middle-to-end and end-to-middle
>>> communication prevents middleboxes from being truly transparent (to
>> the
>>> app layer) or fully visible (to the network layer), EME resolves to
>>> address the problem IMHO.
>> That was (is) the goal of MIDCOM, as Melinda pointed out. What will
>> this WG do beyond that? 
> 
> EME is different from MIDCOM in that the MIDCOM model is of an endpoint
> signaling *to the line of middle boxes* in front of it (i.e E-M), while
> the the EME model is the endpoint signaling *to the other endpoint*
> through the line of middle boxes in front of both of them (i.e. E-M-E).

That'd be useful to bring out in the charter.

Joe

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme