Jari Arkko wrote:
There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging
configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple
interfaces (the "original view"), multiple default routers (the "routing
view"), multiple addresses (the "IP layer view"), multiple
administrative domains (the "operational view"), and so on.
I would like to make the point that there is no single, perfect answer.
Its easy to find examples where the key issues above do not capture
everything that we want to capture (see, e.g., George's response to
Keith). Its really about the combination of these issues. And I think
that is the way it should be.
The charter text that I sent out yesterday attempts to explain what the
problem space is without prejudicing ourselves to a view from just one
perspective (except perhaps through the group's acronym). I think the
rest is work on the problem statement, and we should let the group write
The IESG telechat where this could be approved is two days away. Does
someone have a big problem with the charter as written, serious enough
to warrant a change?
1. I really think that the emphasis on "attachment to multiple networks"
is too narrow, as this is far from the only source of the problem. As
long as the WG is just trying to understand the problem and identify
existing solutions, it seems appropriate to broaden the scope to
consider the more general problem of multiple addresses per host.
2. I also think that, when considering the effect on applications, it
needs to be explicitly pointed out that p2p and distributed apps need to
be considered separately from client-server apps that many people regard
More generally I think that various kinds of effects need to be
considered (i.e. not just the effects on applications) and it would be
very helpful if the charter could lists some examples of these as
illustrations of the breadth of scope. That would minimize the
potential for the WG to start off with many participants thinking "_the_
problem is X" when the actual problem is much broader.... and hopefully
get the WG in the mode where it tries to enumerate the various problems
and impacts rather than to try to nail down _which_ problem it is and
ignore the others.
3. I am a bit concerned by the charter's mentioning of BCP documents as
a possible output from the WG. I thought I had seen language in the
charter text saying that the group should write a BCP, but either I was
mistaken or that language has since been removed. But there's still a
BCP mentioned as a deliverable in the milestones. My concern is that
the WG will take this as license to try to define best current practice,
which I think is somewhat of a conflict of interest with trying to
identify the problem - especially given the broad scope.
Ietf mailing list