[mif] problem statement - clarifications on scenarios

[<pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hello,

During Stockholm meeting, we've decided to include scenarios from
section 3 of draft-williams within MIF problem statement draft. 

After having discussed with authors of req and scenarios drafts, we
concluded that, _from problem statement perspective_, these scenarios
can be classified into two use-cases:
1. "Services shared between all provisioning domains" (corresponds to
draft-williams/scenario 3.1) 
Or
2. "Services shared by a limited number of provisioning domain" (we've
considered that scenarios 3.3 to 3.5 lead to the same use-case when
considering the high-level description of the ps).


So we have simply updated the MIF host definition in
draft-ietf-problem-statement with the following statement:
" Communications using these IP addresses may be tied on all the
possible provisioning domains, or, at least, on a limited number of
provisioning domains." 


Now, it may be not sufficient for a good understanding of the issue, so
before submitting a new version, we wish to have the feeling of the WG
on the following: 
- Do you agree with the classification of the scenarios into two
use-cases, considering the high-level description of the ps?
- Do you think the statement in host definition is clear enough or do
you thing a dedicated section for scenarios is also required?



Comments are welcomed. 

Best Regards,
Pierrick