RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

To: "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>, "Bill Manning" <bmanning at ISI.EDU>
Subject: RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema at exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:48:59 -0800
Cc: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins at dsperkins.com>, "Michael Richardson" <mcr at research.solidum.com>, <ietf at ietf.org>
Thread-index: AcCL9LfoHtlWrVLSRDyECBDo7S+r+AABHYzQ
Thread-topic: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

The point being that if you have an arbitrary bunch of firewalls and
NATs between any two points, then you are forced into telephone-like
"call set-up" scenarios, which don't really scale to large groups,
specially when the application consists of sporadic messages to
arbitrary destinations. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:01 PM
To: Bill Manning
Cc: Keith Moore; David T. Perkins; Michael Richardson; ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables 

> e.g.  it takes (at least) two to tango... or peer.

"at least".  yes.

Keith

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
  - From: Bill Manning

Prev by Date: Re: FAQ: The IETF+Censored list
Next by Date: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Previous by thread: RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Next by thread: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.