Subject: Re: [mif] Focusing the Charter Re: Charter Updated Ver. 2

From: ma yc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:39:53 +0800

Hi, Hui

It's very interesting topic of MIF and i have one question
about the charter.

>From the discussion, it seems that the only policy related
work is the "Routing of multiple interfaces".
According to the description of the rouging part, it seems that the
"application related specific routing information" is kind of policy.

In this case i just wonder if the "policy" equals "application related
specific routing information" or not.

If the answer is yes, then the word "policy" is a little ambiguous.
It may include information which is not restricted to "application
related specific routing information", for example, user profile.
In this case the phrase "application related specific routing information" is
more specific and clearer. Maybe it is better to use the phrase in
the backgound part instead of policy.

Or the policy may include information other than the application
specific routing information. In this case i think to specify what
kind of "policy"
is needed is an important work for mif. And in the description of
"Routing of multiple interfaces" it does not seem to be stated clearly.
How about explictly stating that in the proposed work?

How about your thoughts?

Thank you,
BRG
Yuanchen

Hi, George,

Thanks to seperate thread to make it easy discussion.
Comments inline starting with ==>

2009/2/19 George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>

Hi Hui,

I am changing subject to make the threads easier to follow.
Comments in line starting with GK>

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Hui Deng <denghui02 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, George,
>
> Your comments are good remindness. reply inline please
>
> 2009/2/18 George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>
>>
>> Hi Hui et.al.,
>>
>> This looks like an interesting BOF so thanks for taking the initiative.
>>
>> I have two main comments with respect to the charter.
>>
>> I think it is unusual for a charter of this type (i.e., new work
>> rather than explicit update of a specific protocol) to identify the
>> exact protocol on which the solution is going to be based (you are
>> talking about using DHCP below). I would think that protocol selection
>> is something that the WG (if formed) is going to have to talk about.
>
> At the moment, there are no suggestions to use other protocol, and
> some people prefer would like to use it, could this be OK?
>

GT> I would think not but it is not for me to say. You may want to
double check with your AD to make sure. BTW, I have seen at least one
more proposal in this thread (talking about a policy box in the
network) which I would expect it would not use DHCP. Personally, I do
not like such God-boxes but the proposal does seem to exist. On the
other hand I do not see how DHCP will help either but I will keep an
open mind.
==> Let's avoid to put God-boxes, we would better focus on what policy
it really need firstly as you said below. for DHCP, you will be able
to see DNS and routing proposal soon, I guess Teemu just posted splict
dns related draft.

GT> The bottom line is that instead of talking about which protocol to
use maybe it would be productive to expand on what kind of "policy"
you are talking about. For example, you could discuss whether the
policy you want to provide to the host requires global knowledge or
not. i.e., does the policy provider need to know which interfaces are
available and/or active on the host? at what time frame (i.,e., is
this real time policy or long term guidelines)? or it does not matter
at all, and instead the policy is interface specific and does not
depend on any other interface on the host?
Answers to such questions will probably point to the type of protocol
required ...that's if you decide you need a protocol at all.
==> your suggestion are valuable here, I hope that current two solutions
(DNS, and routing) could answer those questions. one thing you remind
me is that whether those policies need lifetime or not. As you said,
the policy are more interface specific, it may be delivered to the interface
when it is actived, or may not depends on another interface of the host.

>>
>> Having said that, I think the charter and the presentations during the
>> BOF, should be very specific on exactly what approach the work should
>> take.
>> At the moment the charter and the people posting here seem to be torn
>> between:
>> - a protocol-free host requirements type work, and
>> - protocol-based policy work,
>> the two things requiring rather different way of thinking.
>
> I haven't see a protocol-free work proposed here, can you help to elaborate
> a little more.

GT> If you look at the Proposed Work part of your charter only one
item requires new protocol work (the DHCP one). Everything else is
about how the host should handle multiple interfaces based on existing
information.This is what all your BCP and INFO documents are all
about. Am I missing something?
==> Yes, to make the smallest set for starting point of the bof, we
limit out work
to only three work at the moment,   the other possible protocol work would be
Split DNS.

Thanks for your suggestions.

-Hui

<snip>

---

From: ma yc <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:42:39 +0800

Hi, Hui

It's very interesting topic of mif and i have one question
about the charter.

>From the following discussion, it seems that to specify the policy
is one important work for mif. In the proposed work the only policy
related work is the "Routing of multiple interfaces".
According to the description of the routing part, it seems that the
"application related specific routing information" is kind of policy.

related specific routing information", for example, user profile in
other scenarios.

kind of "policy" is needed is an important work for mif. And in the
description of

How about your thoughts?

Thank you,
BRG
Yuanchen

Hi, George,

Hi Hui,

-Hui

<snip>

---

From: "Yingzhe Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:15:17 -0800

Hi Hui,

I am new to the group and it is nice to see you have come up with 2nd
version or proposed charter.
I have a question may be you can answer:

The "connection manager" in proposed charter, it is unclear to me if it is
the same concept that is being used somewhere else (existing feature), like
windows mobile, pocketpc, or some access connection manager that provides
switching functionality (e.g, turns off wireless when Ethernet is
connected). Probably a clear definition or appropriate name is needed,
especially if these concepts are not the same.

Thanks,
Yingzhe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> ma yc
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mif] Focusing the Charter Re: Charter Updated Ver. 2
> 
> Hi, Hui
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:00:58 +0800

Hello, Yuanchen

Excuse me for replying late
Thanks for your question,

Please check the reply inline

2009/2/24 ma yc <[email-masked]>

> specific routing information" or not.

Firstly, DNS information could be a kind of policy information.

> How about explictly stating that in the proposed work?

At the current charter, policy could be DNS and routing information.
We have the diffculty to improve the words"Routing of multiple interfaces"
You have better suggestions?

Thanks for your kind help

-Hui

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:03:58 +0800

Hi, Yingzhe,

For the word "connection manager" as you said, symbian, Windows Mobile, or
other OSs
already specify this common word,
you could refer to below open website information:
http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/190358c8-7cb1-4be3-9321-f9d6788ecae5/S60_Platform_IP_Bearer_Management_v1_0_en.pdf.html

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms832355.aspx

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/5827/Wireless_gateways_447132_11.jsp

many thanks for your review.

-Hui

2009/2/25 Yingzhe Wu <[email-masked]>

---

From: ma yc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:12:28 +0800

Hi, Hui

Thank you for your reply. Please check inline.

Regards
Yuanchen

> You have better suggestions?

yuanchen> I think the wording of "Routing of multiple interfaces" is fine.
I think a few words can be added in the description part and i wonder if
the protocol should be mentioned here. Please check below.
Comments are welcomed.

   A multi-homed host may have multiple routes ......Thus a IPv4/IPv6 host
would need to be provided with more information(policy?) for
interface selection. The information(policy?) may include application
related specific routing information, the DNS information, etc., and
can be provided locally or from the network. (Proposed Standard)

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:42:07 +0800

Hi, Yuanchen,

Reply inline below,

2009/2/27 ma yc <[email-masked]>

> can be provided locally or from the network. (Proposed Standard)

==> DNS related will not be covered by this work item,
and policy provided by the network will not be include the current charter,
this could be done by re-charter in the future.

thanks again for your suggestions.

Best regards,

-Hui