At 1:14 PM -0700 4/20/09, Jari Arkko wrote:
Hui,
I'm not sure if I understood your comment about the WG name correctly.
We cannot change it at this stage easily. So lets just keep it as is.
Huh? Why on earth is it hard? Strings are cheap.
Not that I care much about this, but having been in many a working
group name change (hi, DRINKS folks!), I don't know what has changed
to make this hard.
Ted
Please find below the full charter proposal, with the suggested changes
folded in from you and others.
Jari
Multiple InterFaces (mif)
------------------------------------------------
Last Modified: 2009-04-20
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chair(s):
TBD
Internet Area Director(s):
Ralph Droms <rdroms(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
Internet Area Advisor:
TBD
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: mif(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif
Description of Working Group:
Many hosts have the ability to attach to multiple networks
simultaneously. This can happen over multiple physical network
interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or
tunnels), or even through multiple default routers being on the same
link. For instance, current laptops and smartphones typically have
multiple access network interfaces.
A host attached to multiple networks has to make decisions about default
router selection, address selection, DNS server selection, choice of
interface for packet transmission, and the treatment of configuration
information received from the various networks. Some configuration
objects are global to the node, some are local to the interface, and
some are related to a particular prefix. Various issues arise when
multiple configuration objects that are global to the node are received
on different interfaces. At best, decisions about these matters have an
efficiency effect. At worst, they have more significant effects such as
security impacts, or even lead to communication not being possible at all.
A number of operating systems have implemented various techniques to
deal with attachments to multiple networks. Some devices employ only one
interface at a time and some allow per-host configuration of preferences
between the interfaces but still use just one at a time. Other systems
allow per-application preferences or implement sophisticated policy
managers that can be configured by users or controlled externally.
The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the issues of
attaching to multiple networks on hosts, document existing practice, and
make recommendations about best current practice. The WG shall employ
and refer to existing IETF work in this area, including, for instance,
strong/weak models (RFC 1122), address selection (RFC 3484), DHCP
mechanisms, Router Advertisement mechanisms, and DNS recommendations.
The focus of the working group should be on documenting the system level
effects to host IP stacks and identification of gaps between the
existing IETF recommendations and existing practice. The working group
shall address both IPv4 and IPv6 as well as stateless and stateful
configuration.
Network discovery and selection on lower layers as defined by RFC 5113
is out of scope. Also, the group shall not develop new protocol or
policy mechanisms; recommendations and gap analysis from the group are
solely based on existing solutions. The group shall not assume any
software beyond basic IP protocol support on its peers or in network
nodes. No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one
interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on mechanisms
that require peer or network support for moving traffic flows such as
RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of addresses in Mobile
IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms.
Once the group has completed its work items, the IETF can make an
informed decision about rechartering the working group to define new
mechanisms or asking other, specialized working groups (such as DHC or
6MAN) to deal with specific issues.
Milestones:
May 2009 WG chartered
July 2009 Initial draft on problem statement adopted by the WG
September 2009 Initial draft on existing practices adopted by the WG
Jan 2010 Initial best current practices draft adopted by the WG
March 2010 Problem statement draft submitted to the IESG for publication
as an Informational RFC
July 2010 Existing practices draft submitted to the IESG for publication
as an Informational RFC
September 2010 Best current practices draft submitted to the IESG for
publication as a BCP
October 2010 Recharter or close
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf