Subject: [mif] Recharter discussion - update

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:59:01 +0800

Hi all,

It seems people is ok with the following updated text
Regards,

-Hui

1) Split-DNS solution:
a specification of DHCPv6 options allowing client nodes to perform
route table configuration, to avoid all flows being led to the
default route."

2) DHCPv6 routing configuration:
a specification of an option to DHCPv6 to inform hosts information
required to perform advanced routing table configuration, to avoid
the all flows being led to the default route.

3) MIF API:
an abstract API describing how applications can exploit additional
features of multiple interface enabled stack. While MIF
does not need any application changes, this API could provide additional
services
to MIF related functions, such as first-hop selection, source address
selection, DNS
selection, etc.

 Goals and Milestones
Nov 2010: Initial WG draft on Split-DNS solution
Nov 2010: Initial WG draft on DHCPv6 option for routing configuration
Nov 2010: Initial WG draft on MIF API extension.
Nov 2011: Submit Split-DNS solution to IESG for publication as
 a Proposed Standard RFC
Nov 2011: Submit DHCPv6 extension solution to IESG for publication as a
 Proposed Standard RFC
Nov 2011: Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication
 as an Informational RFC

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:27:58 +0800

Hi all,

There is a mistake about DHCPv6 related to Woj's comment, so rephrase again
Regards,

-Hui

1) Split-DNS solution:

2) DHCPv6 routing configuration:
a specification of DHCPv6 options allowing client nodes to perform
route table configuration.

3) MIF API:

 Goals and Milestones

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:00:40 -0400

Hi Hui,

> route table configuration, to avoid all flows being led to the

This does not seem like the right text for Split DNS.  Could this be a  
cut-and-paste error?

This section previously said:

"a specification for describing a way for a network to communicate to
nodes information required to perform advanced DNS server selection
in split-DNS deployments. The specification shall describe the
information to be delivered for nodes and the protocol to be used
for delivery."

> route table configuration, to avoid all flows being led to the

I would make one change though:  s/led/sent

> does not need any application changes, this API could provide  
> additional services
> to MIF related functions, such as first-hop selection, source  
> address selection, DNS
> selection, etc.

I don't feel comfortable the use of "MIF" as a noun, as though it were  
a protocol...  Maybe the second sentence could say:

"While no changes are needed for applications to run on multiple  
interface hosts, this API could provide additional services to  
applications running on multiple interface hosts, such as..."

> Nov 2011: Submit DHCPv6 extension solution to IESG for publication  

s/extension solution/routing configuration option

> Nov 2011: Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication

s/MIF API extension solution/abstract MIF API description

Let me know what you think.

Margaret

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:46:02 +0200

Hi Margaret, Hui,

I'd suggest a slight modification of API item. Please see inline.

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : lundi 30 août 2010 12:01
> À : Hui Deng
> Cc : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: Recharter discussion - update
> 
> 
> Hi Hui,
> 

I like this sentence but, we are also meant to address single interface terminals. So, I'd propose the following:

While no changes are needed for applications to run on multiple interface hosts, this API could provide additional services to applications running on hosts attached to multiple provisioning domains. For instance, these services could help in solving first-hop, source address and/or DNS selection issues.

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:54:20 +0800

Hi Margaret,

Thanks, that was copy past mistake,
others have been updated together with Pierrick.

Regards,

-Hui

2010/8/30 Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

> I don't feel comfortable the use of "MIF" as a noun, as though it were a
> protocol...  Maybe the second sentence could say:
>
> "While no changes are needed for applications to run on multiple interface
> hosts, this API could provide additional services to applications running on
> multiple interface hosts, such as..."
>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:29:13 -0400

Sounds good, Hui.  Thanks for putting this all together!

Margaret

On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:54 PM, Hui Deng wrote:

> This does not seem like the right text for Split DNS.  Could this be  
> a cut-and-paste error?
>
> I don't feel comfortable the use of "MIF" as a noun, as though it  
> were a protocol...  Maybe the second sentence could say:
>