Re: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS

A connection manager is just one particular instance of an entity that performs domain selection, and the proliferation of connection managers on a single host illustrates the challenges involved with multiple policies on domain selection playing simultaneously.

So the two missing in points in the draft are 1) issues with domain selection, and 2) issues with different policies for domain selection being provisioned by different actors, e.g., end-user, corporate IT admin, ISP, operator.

I believe these are spelled out in [1]

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com [mailto:pierrick.seite@orange-
> ftgroup.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca; Laganier, Julien
> Cc: mif@ietf.org; denghui02@hotmail.com; draft-cao-mif-
> analysis@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mif] WG LC for MIF PS
> 
> 
> 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