Re: [mif] problem-statement: api

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

Hi Mika,

Sorry for having missed your first email. That's a good input we can refer to, but without focusing in shim specific issue. If no objection from the WG, we could include the reference into the API section we are currently discussing. Thanks.

Regards,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Miika Komu [mailto:miika.komu at hiit.fi]
> Envoyé : lundi 9 novembre 2009 18:48
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> Cc : marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca; mif at ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [mif] problem-statement: api
> 
> pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have sent this link earlier to this mailing list but there was no
> discussion or comments:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg00549.html
> 
> Would it be possible to have a section referencing this work in the
> problem statement draft? The draft is all about multihoming and APIs
> after all.
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I couldn't attend the meeting, so I don't know exactly what it has been
> said. However, I agree the ps should address API/Connection manager.
> Actually, I think this feature is worth a dedicated section. So, based on
> Marc's proposal, I'd propose the following text, please feel free to
> comment/modify:
> >
> > x. Connection management
> >
> > Some implementations, specially in the mobile world, have higher-level
> > API, and/or connection managers, to address IP configuration issues in a
> context of multiple provisioning domains. Depending on the implementation,
> and/or OS, these mechanisms do not necessarily behave the same way in the
> presence of the MIF problems [draft-ietf-mif-current-practices].
> Therefore, at least, standardization of such an API should be considered
> in order to facilitate implementation of mechanisms addressing MIF issues.
> In the same way, harmonized behaviour of connection manager across
> different implementations and/or OS would bring more consistency for MIF
> users; in such a case, standardization of a framework for connection
> manager, would be valuable.
> >
> > Then in section 5, I'd reword a little bit the Marc's text:
> >
> > * When available, implementation of multiple interfaces API and/or
> connection managers do not necessarily behave the same way in the presence
> of the MIF problems. API and/or framework for connection managers should
> be standardized for the sake of harmonization in addressing MIF issues.
> >
> > Feel free to comment.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pierrick
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : mif-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces at ietf.org] De la part de
> Marc
> >> Blanchet
> >> Envoyé : lundi 9 novembre 2009 07:56
> >> À : mif at ietf.org
> >> Objet : [mif] problem-statement: api
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>   following the two comments on the mic about adding some text in the
> PS
> >> about API/Connection manager, here is first text proposal that would be
> >> added to section 5.
> >>
> >> "Some implementations, specially in the mobile world, have higher-level
> >> API and/or connection managers. These mechanisms are not standardized
> >> and do not necessarily behave the same way in the presence of the MIF
> >> problems. Therefore, a standard API could be considered."
> >>
> >> Please put more meat around the bone...
> >>
> >> Regards, Marc.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mif mailing list
> >> mif at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > mif at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif