Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection
"Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 16:29 UTC
Return-Path: <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.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 A3DB611E80F6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, 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 isRfDA+ZQGLR for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (smtp-out1.interdigital.com [64.208.228.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC38A11E80F5 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:29:31 -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_01CD70CB.FE9BD9E3"
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:29:30 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C049ECFFD@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <49B86DE2-4CDB-42D0-9AF9-25E56F89E0D4@nominum.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection
Thread-Index: AQHNcCpCx3vi/hqDfku3VfHWCfpMfZdF6s2AgAADtACAAAk5gIAAuCoAgAB69YD//4ryIA==
References: <CAC8QAccpQTO2u2z00r-s_hc_bA+usFKnHN-zfMOMvnbnc3kE6g@mail.gmail.com><086FCD42-FC16-4F24-8032-7F763731BB2B@nominum.com><CAC8QAcdG2cZiWPmrELP5Jm4DYXME2ZxC1cS_LA8txKubsMayeg@mail.gmail.com><037E6537-B7EF-449A-8581-864C798171A2@nominum.com><2970_1343898105_501A41F9_2970_1111_1_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F7102F8B0@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <49B86DE2-4CDB-42D0-9AF9-25E56F89E0D4@nominum.com>
From: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, pierrick.seite@orange.com, mif@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2012 16:29:31.0534 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE9322E0:01CD70CB]
Subject: Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:29:34 -0000
Ted, Pierrick, I think specifying connection manager requirements is a good idea and very much in line with the laundry list we were discussing during my presentation. >From my side, I also would like to see a connection manager interface that allows providing a common behavior from different devices operating in the same managed network. As Ted mentions, we can start by defining the list of API messages to have more concrete examples and then have a more concrete discussion. Regards, Juan Carlos From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:22 PM To: List List Subject: Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:01 AM, <pierrick.seite@orange.com> <pierrick.seite@orange.com> wrote: Full specification of a Connection manager is out of the IETF scope, but it is expected from the MIF API to provide information and functionalities that a connection manager may need. On the other hand, I think that ongoing work in MIF ( implementation guideline or specification of the high-level API) may provide guidance on how a connection manager should use the MIF API . In fact, the current work on the MIF API is assuming that the connection manager may use, and indeed _require_ features of the operating system which are not exposed in the MIF API. The reason for this division is that it's expected that the vendor of a device or operating system will almost certainly have a single connection manager that controls the connections of the machine, and that there is no way to anticipate the context in which this connection manager will operate. So its deliverables are fairly clear, but its requirements are clear as mud. If this is not in fact the consensus of the working group, then people who know more about how connection managers work (if there are any who can participate) should be proposing additional API messages. For my part, I think that we have a pretty clear and manageable job to do if we just solve the problem of providing the minimal functionality that a high-level API or smart application would need.
- [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Zuniga, Juan Carlos
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection Zuniga, Juan Carlos