IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif-arch-dt] New Version Notification for draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-00.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 20 July 2013 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F8C11E80E1 for <mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QW6evkAPTijJ for <mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1449911E8117 for <mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUerOU774OqDgyBZjO8QSx7NZGQYJ3USW@postini.com; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:20 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D5D1B823F for <mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF87A190060; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:52:07 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@chinamobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif-arch-dt] New Version Notification for draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOhXHZkkp+JndfI0uRfmhw7PS/+w==
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:52:07 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077521C9E7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <20130714041913.29430.66253.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e7573b69f58a4f0b903cf7a3ae03cf48@SN2PR03MB077.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <024f01ce836a$0c59b220$250d1660$@com> <9f84e98ff5bc45e2ac0465c72bdc24e1@SN2PR03MB077.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <002801ce851f$f8eb8cb0$eac2a610$@com>
In-Reply-To: <002801ce851f$f8eb8cb0$eac2a610$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <379CF9A51D1079409D146B5C18ACCCD7@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>" <mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [mif-arch-dt] New Version Notification for draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mif-arch-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIF Architecture Design Team mailing list <mif-arch-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif-arch-dt>, <mailto:mif-arch-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif-arch-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-arch-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif-arch-dt>, <mailto:mif-arch-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:52:26 -0000

On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@chinamobile.com> wrote:
> If there is an idendification for PVD as a whole, then how to identify one
> particular configuration element(for example, one DHCP server) belongs to
> that PVD?

It's entirely possible for a single DHCP server to represent _more than one_ PVD.   That said, the question of what protocol drafts to write is something that we expect to _follow_ the architecture document, so we can't really answer those questions _in_ the architecture document. :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email