[mif] MIF at the application level

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Sun, 15 March 2009 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
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 6600428C11F for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.119, BAYES_40=-0.185, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 serj3auN2sVR for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.implementers.org (server.implementers.org [69.55.225.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DAA28C11A for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by server.implementers.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A2B506C984B2; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (server.implementers.org [127.0.0.1]) by server.implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CB3E06C984A8 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:30:31 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <49BD655F.8080808@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:30:23 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [mif] MIF at the application level
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: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:29:52 -0000

I read the 4 documents listed in the agenda for the MIF BOF, and I
am surprised to see very few discussion about the application
behavior in presence of multiple interfaces.  The documents talk
mostly about operating system configuration but, in the spirit of
the end to end argument, I do think that the final decision on what
network to choose (when there is a choice) should be made by the
application, with fallback to some automatic configuration when the
application is not smart enough to do this.  NICE
(draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip) is a very good example on how an
application can choose between different networks and perhaps this
draft, that does not seem to be maintained currently, could be part
of the deliverables of the future MIF WG.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Work: petithug@acm.org