Re: [mif] Adoption of API document as the MIF WG document

Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Tue, 20 December 2011 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C62721F842F for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, 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 VWk19g1SRmDU for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E39821F842D for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnk5 with SMTP id k5so5078588ggn.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=L40+X7fsWXLlidr4Sx7XcKhedeA2e5MhTeYyNrVi+Po=; b=oih8ebrAtbNifzHI7dZZR86lDjZbXZX+cGx24LNc1XpkAqeUWk7TSV2QmHv8p/5jHn Qfz7/nYyaad9rVcZw7yvik4FTSno0T+NfTBdI9YD+gNUUtrNXZwiXjai/O8c2t1OBhGt qiLvUcpvT111nh2yZT03EqZNXVFlmo89d8t84=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.244.14 with SMTP id r14mr283599anh.51.1324361624229; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.146.118.14 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:13:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EEF6714.40804@viagenie.ca>
References: <COL118-W224376376AE7A3CC854753B1A30@phx.gbl> <4EEB70DF.3070201@viagenie.ca> <79DAA562-B463-4D11-A4E5-AEE1325531A0@nominum.com> <4EEF5278.8040103@viagenie.ca> <50824C2C-A4A8-4E92-A12D-45082B9CF5DC@nominum.com> <4EEF5D26.3080203@viagenie.ca> <0FECAD9E-E1EB-4849-BF8E-227F49975559@nominum.com> <4EEF6714.40804@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:13:44 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMBt=7rB0++NYxnMrfRLz2XJDg40OLMrgOPj6fYAUTWNYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, MIF Mailing List <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5bf262a95c304b47ff845"
Subject: Re: [mif] Adoption of API document as the MIF WG document
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:13:47 -0000

This is a new recharter proposal which need to be discussed during next
ietf meeting all together

thanks

-Hui

2011/12/20 Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>

>  On 2011-12-19 11:24, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>
>>> I just don't want the WG to see this document as something that allows
>>> us to
>>> place a "DONE" checkmark next to the API milestone. There is still API
>>> work to
>>> be done.
>>>
>>
>> Well, an easy fix for this is to add a milestone that addresses this
>> concern.
>>
>
> I'd be happy with that. Something like...
>
>  3) MIF API: While no changes are needed for applications to run on
>  multiple interface hosts, a new API could provide additional services
>  to applications running on hosts attached to multiple provisioning
>  domains. For instance, these services could assist advanced
>  applications in having greater control over first-hop, source address
>  and/or DNS selection issues. This API will be defined as an abstract
>  interface specification, i.e., specific details about mapping to
>  operating system primitives or programming language will be left out.
>
>    3.1) Low-level API: This API will specify base functionality that a
>    platform needs to make available for the high-level API to be possible.
>    It is intended to be used by applications for most tasks: that will be
> the
>    high-level API's role. Applications could still call into the low-level
> API
>    to perform complex, infrequent tasks.
>
>    3.2) High-level API: This API will specify functionality intended for
>    applications' frequent tasks. The term "high-level" means that it will
>    abstract the tasks that need to be perform and minimize an application's
>    knowledge of a node's network configuration. It should be easy to use
> and
>    appropriate for most of tasks commonly performed by applications.
>
> If the charter was modified to something like the above then I'd change my
> position to "support"...
>
>
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.**ca<http://postellation.viagenie.ca/>
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> ______________________________**_________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mif<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>
>