IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS

<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96BB3A6C53 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id skPTq4bOMYfo for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647A83A6CD8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EDCA457C3AC; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D485257C3B1; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:58:01 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:57:58 +0100
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462BFD6B6@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4BA99C25.8090504@viagenie.ca>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS
Thread-Index: AcrLDtre4PYEkNOmStSymKL3UelGmwAYqB8A
References: <COL118-W43D1A92D6FAECE336508C6B1310@phx.gbl><BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C6AA5685C@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <4BA99C25.8090504@viagenie.ca>
From: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
To: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, julienl@qualcomm.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2010 16:58:01.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[2995C840:01CACB73]
Cc: denghui02@hotmail.com, mif@ietf.org, draft-cao-mif-analysis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:58:04 -0000

Hi,

>From my understanding:

The PS does not describe the problem when a terminal supports multiple connection managers. I agree this is an issue and this problem will be added.

Document [1] considers domain selection issue. Actually, I think we are inline here: the PS covers that problem with connection manager considerations (the PS considers domain selection as a task of the connection manager). 

Julien, if I missed something, do not hesitate to correct me.

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Marc
> Blanchet
> Envoyé : mercredi 24 mars 2010 05:59
> À : Laganier, Julien
> Cc : mif@ietf.org; Hui Deng; draft-cao-mif-analysis@tools.ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS
> 
> Laganier, Julien a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> 
> Julien, is there any way you can be more specific in what is missing?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> > Some of us have put together a draft to begin working on the MIF Current
> Practice Analysis [1]. As a starting point to the analysis, we have re-
> classified / expanded on the problems listed in earlier version of the
> problem statement, and communicated that to the authors. Some of our
> comments were integrated in the last PS draft, but not all.
> >
> > So my comment towards WGLC is that I'd like the full problem list
> documented in our draft [1] to be incorporated into the MIF PS. If we
> can't agree to do that, I'd like to discuss a bit more why some of the
> problems listed in our drafts were not considered valid.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --julien
> >
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cao-mif-analysis-00
> >
> > Hui Deng wrote:
> >>
> >> We appear ready to start the working group last call for our PS
> documents.
> >> This is a two-week WGLC.
> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-02.txt
> >>
> >> This is a two week WGLC finishing on March 26.  Please send substantive
> >> review comments to mif@ietf.org
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -Hui
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > mif@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> 
> 
> --
> =========
> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
> NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email