Re: [mif] Comments on draft-williams-mif-problem-scenarios-00

["Carl Williams" <carlw at mcsr-labs.org>]

Hi Domink,

  Yes, you are correct that MIF shouldn't break MIP.

  We are currently working to merge the scenarios section of this draft into
the main problem statement document.  So I will address your comments in the
new updated version of merged draft.  

  Carl


-----Original Message-----
From: mif-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dominik Kaspar
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:28 AM
To: Carl Williams; MIF
Subject: [mif] Comments on draft-williams-mif-problem-scenarios-00

Hi Carl,

I would like to give some comments on your draft "MIF Problem
Requirements and Scenarios".

First, the requirements:
R4: what does it mean to "not require support for Mobile IP"? Should
it at least be required that MIF does not break Mobile IP (or in
general, any other existing protocol)?
R7 and R8: the charter states that "the group shall not develop new
protocol or policy mechanisms". However, R7 and R8 are both addressing
the support of specific policies.

Second, the scenarios:
- What is the definition of a service in this context?
- How does the heterogeneity of the interfaces affect the listed
scenarios? For example, wouldn't a MIF host with two independent WLAN
connections be in a different "scenario" than a MIF host connected to
a WLAN and a 3G access network? Is it a requirement to let the user
choose when and how to use WLAN and the 3G link? Or should it be a
requirement that a MIF solution makes "smart" decisions about what
network to use?

Greetings,
Dominik
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif