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.