Re: [MEXT] [mif] Multiple interfaces problems in MEXT and mif

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Thu, 29 January 2009 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: monami6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-monami6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1963A6A97; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71EB3A68BC; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:56:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 5p1uo3eLOP2f; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9243A68D7; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro.local (134.pool85-53-135.dynamic.orange.es [85.53.135.134]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1BA65A16D; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:56:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <498217EF.50709@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:56:15 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
References: <932b01c98117$dcb28e10$8310fe81@etri.info> <498027F9.8050604@it.uc3m.es> <49820BB6.9070405@viagenie.ca> <49820D13.2060601@it.uc3m.es> <20090129202644.GZ34382@cisco.com> <4982148C.9080608@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4982148C.9080608@viagenie.ca>
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-5.5.0.1026-16432.002
Cc: julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com, Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>, mif@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [mif] Multiple interfaces problems in MEXT and mif
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org

Marc Blanchet escribió:
> Scott Brim a écrit :
>   
>> Excerpts from marcelo bagnulo braun on Thu, Jan 29, 2009 09:09:55PM
>> +0100:
>>     
>>> makes sense to me
>>>
>>> Marc Blanchet escribió:
>>>       
>>>> to me, the main difference is that the 'multiple interface' issue
>>>> is not bound to mobility, and more specifically to mobility
>>>> protocols (mobileIPv4, mobileipv6, nemo, ...).
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the MIF work is not scoping about mobility protocols and
>>>> shall not require mobility protocols.
>>>>
>>>> I would see that if some part of the MIF work is looking at the
>>>> mobility protocols, then these should be then "transfered" to MEXT.
>>>>         
>> Even without mobility considerations, the issue of how to handle
>> multiple interfaces overlaps with IntArea, RRG, and Behave (those are
>> the ones I can think of offhand).  Have you seen the arguments, for
>> example, about session initialization when multiple addresses can be
>> in play simultaneously at both ends?  I apologize but I still don't
>> understand the MIF boundaries.
>>     
>
> of course, there is overlap, as most IETF issues and work span over
> multiple groups.
>
> to me, the question in hand is the following:
> a) do we think this is a "real" problem
> b) if yes, then what should we do with it.
> c) if what = possible wg, then write charter, ...
>
> to me, a) and b) are clearly subject of the BOF. c) depends on the
> outcome of the BOF.
>
> Looking at the various comments over the past weeks, it might be good
> that we (the initial proposers or anyone I shall say) should write a
> possible wg charter based on the discussions. We might then define the
> scope and the out of scope...
>   
that would be perfect imho

now it is a bit confusing what is the scope of this effort at least for me

thanks, marcelo



> Marc.
>   
>> Thanks ... Scott
>>     
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext