Subject: [mif] problem statement - clarifications on scenarios

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:40:59 +0200

Hello,

During Stockholm meeting, we've decided to include scenarios from
section 3 of draft-williams within MIF problem statement draft. 

After having discussed with authors of req and scenarios drafts, we
concluded that, _from problem statement perspective_, these scenarios
can be classified into two use-cases:
1. "Services shared between all provisioning domains" (corresponds to
draft-williams/scenario 3.1) 
Or
2. "Services shared by a limited number of provisioning domain" (we've
considered that scenarios 3.3 to 3.5 lead to the same use-case when
considering the high-level description of the ps).

So we have simply updated the MIF host definition in
draft-ietf-problem-statement with the following statement:
" Communications using these IP addresses may be tied on all the
possible provisioning domains, or, at least, on a limited number of
provisioning domains." 

Now, it may be not sufficient for a good understanding of the issue, so
before submitting a new version, we wish to have the feeling of the WG
on the following: 
- Do you agree with the classification of the scenarios into two
use-cases, considering the high-level description of the ps?
- Do you think the statement in host definition is clear enough or do
you thing a dedicated section for scenarios is also required?

Comments are welcomed. 

Best Regards,
Pierrick

---

From: liu dapeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:31:39 +0800

Hi Pierrick,

I personally prefer the idea of adding a dedicated section to describe
the scenarios, since the scenarios may help people to understand where
the problem is which is the goal of the PS document. Regarding to the
classification of the scenarios, I guess it is ok for me. thanks.

BR,
Dapeng Liu

> 2009/10/20, [email-masked]
> <[email-masked]>:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>
>

---

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:13:17 +0800

Hi Pierrick,

I have some concerns on the two scenarios. I believe MIF problems
occurs in two use cases, outbound communication and inbound
communication. But the current documents only discuss outbound
scenarios, that how a mif host handles all its available interfaces.
For inbound communication that how data traffic routes to the mif host
(mip is one example), it has not been touched.

Besides, I prefer a dedicated section for scenarios.

Thanks,
Zhen