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...
