Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol

I strongly agree with Dave. I might suggest a couple of additions:

- the hop-by-hop and end-to-end distinction is important for a lot of other 
stuff besides security, in addition to security, and

- ("snork!") I'm not sure whether a NAT traversal story (which could be "use 
ICE, stupid") would be appropriate, but best to consider that up front as 
well.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "David R Oran" <oran@cisco.com>

> This is only tangentially related to the main topic of this thread,
> but since it occurred to me on reading this exchange about server
> chaining I thought I'd mention it here:
>
> Many client/server protocols are were initially designed to be
> strictly two party, with no architectural support for proxies or other
> stateful intermediaries (HTTP and RTSP come to mind...there are likely
> many others).
>
> It may behoove us to build proxy capability into ALTO from day 1,
> since it will almost inevitably have to be added later at some level
> of pain, perhaps large, and almost assuredly some undesirable security
> tradeoffs.
>
> This probably involves at least the following:
> - separating our end-to-end from ho--by hop (transport layer?) security
> - clear data model separation between things used to "route" requests
> and things used to interpret queries.
> - a flexible addressing model
> - a way to aggregate and summarize in responses
>
> and likely a bunch of other considerations I'm missing in the above. 

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi