Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 11/11/2014 04:59, Alper Yegin a écrit :
> Sure.
>
> I was just reacting to the assumption that anything that mentions 2
> interfaces automatically falls under the MIF scope :-)
> Also, before this work gets on a long journey thru the IETF system,
> people should be aware that Mobile IP WGs did a lot of work for this
> space and have solutions.

Sure, but here the reqs are different.

Actually I'd go as far as to say that MIP WG did in the past a lot of 
work without requirements, including the flow-based management schemes.

Alex


>
> FYI.
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 5:52 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
>
>> Hi Alper,
>> This work hasn’t been clarified where it should belong to, presenting
>> in MIF doesn’t prevent going to any other working group.
>> Let’s focus on the problem and gap analysis other than where is the
>> place to discuss it.
>> Thanks
>> -Hui
>> *From:*mif [mailto:[e-mail]]*On Behalf Of*Alper Yegin
>> *Sent:*Monday, November 10, 2014 5:46 PM
>> *To:*Xueli
>> *Cc:*Brian Haberman; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:*Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal
>> Hi Xueli,
>> That's one of the general statements in the charter. And it covers so
>> many areas, obviously MIF is not chartered to deal with.
>> For example, discovery of networks, selection of networks,
>> authentication, accounting, host configuration, traffic management,
>> mobility, etc. etc.
>> The statements I pulled form the charter pin-points the exact scope of
>> MIF. Anything else is outside the scope, currently.
>> Alper
>> On Nov 11, 2014, at 5:20 AM, Xueli wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello
>> The MIF charter says like:
>> */"/**/The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the
>> architecture detailing how devices attach to and operate in multiple
>> networks."
>> /*I think my presentation cleanly fits this statement...
>> Best Regards
>> XUELI
>> *发件人:*mif [mailto:[e-mail]]*代表*Alper Yegin
>> *发送时间:*2014年11月11日10:45
>> *收件人:*Sri Gundavelli
>> *抄送:*Brian Haberman;[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> *主题:*Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal
>> MIF focuses on the following issues, and the issue BBF is bringing up
>> is a totally  separate issue.
>> It's about how two links can be aggregated for capacity and
>> reliability boost.
>> So, I agree with Sri that this is not a MIF WG issue.
>> The MIF problem statement document [RFC6418
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6418>] enumerates 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.
>> Alper
>> On Nov 11, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Hui,
>> The BBF requirement as presented in the BBF documents and as
>> interpreted in draft-seite and draft-lhwxz is about enabling a CPE
>> device to attach to multiple access network and perform flow
>> management. However, I look at it, I see this this is a mobility
>> requirement and is really not in the scope of MIF WG. The BBF
>> requirement in question is all about flow switching or flow splitting
>> across access systems. I'm not sure why this work belongs MIF and not
>> DMM which is chartered to handle all mobility use-cases. We have
>> discussed this specific use-case of flow splitting during MIF
>> formation and explicitly disallowed MIF WG from taking up such work.
>> The following is the quote from the MIF chartered text. Also, the MIF
>> WG was primarily looking at issues for a host attached to multiple
>> access networks, but the hybrid access is about a CPE attached to
>> multiple networks. I really think this work should be done in DMM and
>> we did present the requirements in the last IETF meeting.
>> *http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/*
>> *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.*
>> Regards
>> Sri
>> *From:*Hui Deng <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Date:*Friday, October 31, 2014 4:50 AM
>> *To:*Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> 'Xueli' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 'Ted
>> Lemon' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> "'STARK, BARBARA H'" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> 'Alexandru Petrescu' <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Cc:*"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> *Subject:*Follow up with BBF proposal
>> Hi everybody
>> I am recommending that Xue Li could help to put down the slide for the
>> problem statement from BBF.
>> And MIP/NEMO proponents (Pierrick, Alex, Sri) and Xue Li could kindly
>> to meet together during IETF meeting
>> to discuss by adding s thelide about how today solutions meet the
>> requirement or there are some gap still, and whether that problem
>> should be solvable in IETF.
>> Chairs will talk with AD whether MIF or somewhere else will consider
>> to discuss those issues during the f2f session.
>> Best regards,
>> -Hui
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>