[mif] Request for review - updated charter of MIF
Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Mon, 07 October 2013 14:55 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 E254321E80AF for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 FGKrR95HygIj for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x231.google.com (mail-qe0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C8311E80EC for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id s14so5257785qeb.8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HT2hr2PZP4EuFV8qMt6eJo9cKqT6KNuHe+FfQQj+B48=; b=IAq6cLiSiI46rGsULLZBluyoM1YWwE1z/yFeP/eLMKZqFVkGmeSwnoSwuAZGIdYOsK q86KltsqrvwI6QZU6Iih4UNBwKdrGZ4evi5yzZzVm/uD3q1Y7uijw/toDLmwyfM7jxVT n4z9ND2d7lL6jcvV4n7TbDhEUSIr/1Z9s9bKZMoTSMTdlHxahn4TeNbNsSYOBCz4ZnT6 vbADFXdCIsHd116A+Iaj4Xbjvuy6FYCoKExRgfPmcGoDnV9IPO+sB3LRMQ+YTGkzq8Jd Iqo78pFdrsE1CQPfnRscb8QqvwSTQG+krgxK2fh5nzojySCJ06zh9trvQIVQ4hV4eiXS W1Tw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.151.140 with SMTP id c12mr2926308qaw.94.1381157752162; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.16.41 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 07:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 22:55:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMCW1A7hrytd15qgK0hEe3PnY6hosBc2pTYMhto9MyEogA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: MIF Mailing List <mif@ietf.org>, Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e014938ec324f6504e827d933"
Subject: [mif] Request for review - updated charter of MIF
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 14:55:59 -0000
Hello all, Based on last IETF MIF meeting and regular teleconf of MIF design team, below charter has been proposed, please feel free to comment on it Many thanks -cochairs, --------------------------------------------- Charter for Working Group Nodes attached to multiple networks may encounter problems due to conflict of the networks configuration and/or simultaneous use of the multiple available networks. This can happen over multiple physical network interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or tunnels), or even indirectly through multiple default routers being on the same link. For instance, current laptops and smartphones typically have multiple access network interfaces. The MIF problem statement document [RFC6418] enumerate the problems into 3 categories 1. Lack of consistent and distinctive management of configuration elements, associated with different networks. 2. Inappropriate mixed use of configuration elements, associated with different networks, in the course of a particular network activity / connection. 3. Use of a particular network, not consistent with the intent of the scenario / involved parties, leading to connectivity failure and / or other undesired consequences. A number of operating systems have implemented various techniques ([RFC6419])to deal with attachments to multiple networks. Some devices employ only one interface at a time and some allow per-host configuration of preferences between the interfaces but still use just one at a time. Other systems allow per-application preferences or implement sophisticated policy managers that can be configured by users or controlled externally. In many cases the issues may still appear. The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the architecture attaching to multiple provisioning domains. The group shall also analyze that applications will be influenced by these existing mechanisms. The WG shall employ and refer to existing IETF work in this area, including, for instance, strong/weak models (RFC 1122), address selection (RFC 3484), ICE and other mechanisms higher layers can use for address selection, DHCP mechanisms, Router Advertisement mechanisms, and DNS recommendations. 1) Handling sets of network configuration objects by nodes, attached to multiple networks: a solution could include a set of requirements for changes to protocols used to provide configuration information. For example: - requirements for DHCPv6 options, Neighbor Discovery options etc. to communicate association of the objects with particular provisioning domains - best practices for nodes how to group the configuration objects into sets and use them for network connectivity - APIs to expose the sets to the applications which require that information 2) MIF API: While no changes are required 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, interface selection, and PVD 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) MIF API Session Continuity: There are several classes of applications that would desire session continuity in the presence of changing connectivity and multiple attachments. An informational document will recommend some basic steps that applications can follow in order to maintain session continuity to improve user experience by using the aforementioned MIF API interfaces. 4) MIF Happyeyeball: Sometime host prefer to use only one interface for the sesson, a mechanism to make the interface selection process smoother by using some heuristical information. Network discovery and selection on lower layers as defined by RFC 5113 is out of scope. With the exception of support for additional DHCP options in DHCP servers, group shall not assume any software beyond basic IP protocol support on its peers or in network nodes. No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on mechanisms that require peer or network support for moving traffic flows such as RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of addresses in Mobile IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms. Future work in this area requires rechartering the working group or asking other, specialized working groups (such as DHC or 6MAN) to deal with specific issues. Milestones Jan 2011 Analysis draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Mar 2011 Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Nov 2011 Submit advanced DNS server selection solution to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Nov 2013 Architecture draft adopted as the working group document Nov 2013 session continuity adopted as the working group document Dec 2013 Working group last call for MIF API document Dec 2013 working group last call for MIF Happy eyeball document.