Hi Kevin,
Actually
we have already an API section in the ps draft, even
if standardization of the API is not in the current MIF charter. FMU of meeting
discussion, the idea is just to improve the actual API section with some words
about issues with having disparate API behaviour across different OS; and, at
least, stress that multi-platform applications using such an API (e.g.
connection managers) would take benefit from standardization in the field.
Regards,
Pierrick
De : Kevin Chin
[mailto:kchin.xor at gmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi 9 novembre
2009 19:19
À : SEITE Pierrick
RD-RESA-REN
Cc :
marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca; mif at ietf.org
Objet : Re: [mif]
problem-statement: api
Re: "API and/or framework for connection managers should be
standardized for the sake of harmonization in addressing MIF issues"
Why is there a need to address the API space? There is a big
difference from Problem Statement definition and API standardization.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:25 AM, <pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com>
wrote:
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
|