Re: [mif] comment about draft-mrw-mif-current-practices-01.txt

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net> Mon, 16 March 2009 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mrw@sandstorm.net>
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 587EF3A6C2E for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 rRKf5jJz-kbG for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sirocco.sandstorm.net (ip-69-33-111-75.bos.megapath.net [69.33.111.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCE73A691A for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.36.0.45] (c-76-119-58-152.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [76.119.58.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by sirocco.sandstorm.net (8.13.8/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2GNUjdd007516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:30:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mrw@sandstorm.net)
Message-Id: <1817EE71-69F0-445B-8BBE-79E69625A8A2@sandstorm.net>
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <126951.92563.qm@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:30:45 -0400
References: <49BEB858.5030205@it.uc3m.es> <126951.92563.qm@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] comment about draft-mrw-mif-current-practices-01.txt
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: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:30:18 -0000

Hi Behcet,

It would be great to get some information on the iPhone OS if someone  
is able to provide it.  At this point, the information is not  
included, because we don't have it.

Margaret

On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Marcelo,
>   I think that this draft tries to do a difficult thing in  
> documenting on OSs with some outside knowledge.
>   Also I find Iphone OS which is not exactly Mac OS X covered in  
> Sec. 2.8 is missing and it is very relevant to mif work.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
> To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:36:40 PM
> Subject: [mif] comment about draft-mrw-mif-current-practices-01.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> This document includes very interesting information about how  
> current implementations deal with the different problems.
> One suggestion that i think it would help improve the document would  
> be to link it more directly to the problems described in the problem  
> statement. Of course, we need to decide on one problem statement  
> document before, but..
>
> What i mean, is that the problem statement documents describe a set  
> of problems, like dealing with DNS issues, default router selection  
> and so on and it is not directly obvious from the document in its  
> current form how the current implementations deal with the issues.  
> For instance, it is not obvious from this document how current  
> implementations deal with the dual faced dns issue, which i guess  
> many implementations actually handle pretty well.
>
>
> So, i guess that once we have identified the relevant problems we  
> want to work on, in the section for each implementation
> it would be good to have a sub section for each of the problems  
> identified in the problem statement and describing how the  
> particular implementation deals with the particular problem.
>
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif