Multiple Interfaces (MIF)WG documents status

MIF WG

IETF 81, Quebec

Problem statement and current practices documents

Problem statement updates

draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-15 updates the definition of provisioning domain according to Ralph’s discuss (last pending issue)

Ralph Droms’s comment:– I think the text needs to be more careful in its description and

terminology. I understand a "provisioning domain" (based on [current] definition below), but I question the one-to-one relationship between provisioning domain and access path to a service (for want of a better term). I recall reading that the term provisioning domain was developed as a kind of "term of art" in the mif WG. Is there a way to extend the definition in the document to capture the access network aspect of "connecting to a provisioning domain"?

Resolution:– Provisioning domain: A set of consistent configuration

information (e.g. Default router, Network prefixes, DNS,...) and the corresponding interface. One administrative domain may have multiple provisioning domains. Successful attachment to the provisioning domain implies that the terminal attaches to the corresponding interface with appropriate configuration information.

We’re waiting for Ralph’s feedback.

Current practices updates

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11

No major updates (only editorial modifications)

One issue resolved (raised by Adrian Farrel):

– It is usually the IETF's view that individuals should make their own assessment of the function and benefits of different products. It is not the IETF's job to do market analysis or buyers' guides. We can recommend what the right thing to do is, and let people go out and discuss this with the individual vendors. (A slight deviation from the above is the "implementation survey" sometimes conducted to determine what features of a protocol have been implemented. But these are often/usually anonymized.)

Current practices updates (con’t)

Resolution: added note:

– The material presented in Section 3 of this document is derived from contributions from people familiar with the Operating Systems described, and those people are listed in Section 7. The authors and the IETF take no position about the Operating Systems described, and understand that other Operating Systems also exist. Furthermore, it should be understood that Section 3 describes particular behaviors that were believed to be current at the time of documentation: earlier and later versions of the Operating Systems described may exhibit different behaviors.