Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

["Hui Deng" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,

Inline ==> please, trimed.

> Current MIF charter prevent MIF from working on flow switch which is 
>mostly mobile ip/dmm based solution, but it doesn't disallow MIF to 
>work on flow split and per packet delivery.


You are saying the charter disallows splitting of flows across two access networks, but it allows splitting of a single flow ? What is the logic here ?  So, this requirement does not match the prior work because the flow policy is different ? That's the only reason why we should look at this as a different problem from the work that was done in the past ?
==> MIF was chartered to avoid the duplicate work with Mobile IP/DMM stuff, the work is outside of Mobile IP/DMM could be done by anywhere including MIF which is decided by AD, does this make sense?

Per-packet load balancing is probably not explicitly stated as transport group was never in favor of splitting a single flow across two access links with different transmission properties (latency, packet loss and
jitter) as that will result in peers requiring to deal with re-odering/buffering issues.  General recommendation was not to split a single flow, and so the MIP WG always kept the flow definition at the granularity of a flow-level and not at a packet level. But, in any case that's just a policy that is exchanged between two peers.
==>We will see what's the requirement from BBF, and could that be allowed to be done by IETF.

Thanks for the discussion

-Hui