Re: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 for Monday teleconf
"Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 11:35 UTC
Return-Path: <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.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 349DC11E80C5 for <mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 QISBS313F5ml for <mif-arch-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out1.interdigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A805411E80E8 for <mif-arch-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by smtp-out1.interdigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:35:29 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CE86CF.91850BDE"
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:35:27 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C052FB2DC@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <210552d15c254795a8a2033f31f51ae1@SN2PR03MB077.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 for Monday teleconf
Thread-Index: AQHOhl7Apxz8j7/VWkinbL7SBCVT8ZlwjnhA
References: <210552d15c254795a8a2033f31f51ae1@SN2PR03MB077.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com>
To: Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>, mif-arch-dt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2013 11:35:29.0642 (UTC) FILETIME=[916B8CA0:01CE86CF]
Subject: Re: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 for Monday teleconf
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:35:36 -0000
Hi Dmtry, all, Very nice start. Some comments after reading the draft: Section 2. Definitions and types of PVDs As an example, node administrator could inject a not ISP-specific DNS server into PVDs for any of the networks the node could become attached to. Such creation / augmentation of PVD(s) could be static or dynamic. The particular implementation mechanisms are outside of the scope of this document. [JCZ] I believe we should mention ANDSF as one of such policy configuration policy implementations. Later on MMS/APN is also mentioned as an example and it helps understanding the meaning. Section 2.1. Explicit and implicit PVDs It is likely that for a long time there may be networks which do not advertise any explicit PVD information, since deployment of any new features in networking protocols is a relatively slow process. When connected to such networks, PVD-aware nodes may still provide benefits to their users, compared to non-PVD aware nodes, by creating separate PVDs for configuration received on different interfaces. Such PVDs are referred to in this document as "implicit". This allows the node to manage and use network information from different interfaces separately and consistently use the configuration to serve network connection requests. [JCZ] Seems to me that out-of-band PVD advertisements can also be considered in this "implicit" category, especially if the statement is from the IETF-protocols' point of view. If so (and even if it is not), we should add some clarifying text. In the mixed mode, where e.g. multiple networks are available on the link the interface is attached to, and only some of the networks advertize PVD information, the PVD-aware node shall create explicit PVDs based on explicitly learned PVD information, and associate the rest of the configuration with an implicit PVD created for that interface. [JCZ] Can we support multiple PVDs in this mode? Should we say "one or multiple implicit PVDs"? It shall be possible for networks to communicate... [JCZ] Since this is an Informational document, I believe we need to use "should" instead of "shall". There are several occurrences throughout the document. Section 2.3. PVD identity/naming For explicit PVDs, PVD ID (globally unique ID, that possibly is human-readable) is received as part of that information. For implicit PVDs, the node assigns a locally generated globally unique ID to each implicit PVD. PVD-aware node may use these IDs to choose a PVD with matching ID for special-purpose connection requests, in accordance with node policy or choice by advanced applications, and/or to present human-readable IDs to the end-user for selection of Internet-connected PVDs. [JCZ] This is understandable, but very challenging and difficult to enforce. I think more discussion is needed amongst us, and more text to explain and justify the recommendation. Regards, Juan-Carlos From: mif-arch-dt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-arch-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dmitry Anipko Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 6:09 PM To: mif-arch-dt@ietf.org Subject: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 for Monday teleconf Hi all, The submission tool is closed, if there is a way to submit a revision before IETF starts, please let me know. Meanwhile, sending the updated text, with Ted's comments incorporated, attached. Thanks, Dmitry
- [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 for M… Dmitry Anipko
- Re: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 f… Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 f… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif-arch-dt] draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch-01 f… Zuniga, Juan Carlos
- [mif-arch-dt] discussion prior to mif wg slot? Tim Chown
- Re: [mif-arch-dt] discussion prior to mif wg slot? Dmitry Anipko