Hi all, Jari seems to be using the term of "connection" in his emails as "association between an interface and an (access) network". When I used "connection" so far during email exchanges, I have used it as more likely "routing or routable path for packet transmission" in an abstract manner. I feel that different usage of the same word "connection" may consequence confusion or misinterpretation to the audiences. Therefore, it might be better to clarify it in terms of MIF so that everybody can be in the same page without any confusion or misinterpretation:-) Giyeong -----Original Message----- From: mif-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mif-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: April 18, 2009 5:25 AM To: IETF Discussion Cc: Adrian Farrel; mif Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif) I wanted to bring up a comment that was raised during the IESG and IAB discussions about this charter by Adrian and others. When the work started, it was clearly about multiple interfaces. Upon closer inspection, we have realized that the overall problem is somewhat larger. Problems that occur with multiple interfaces also occur even with one interface, when you have a number of default routers on the same link. The current charter text reflects this in some parts of the text, e.g., > Many hosts have the ability to connect 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. However, it was pointed out that the text is not consistent. Other parts still talk about multiple interfaces, e.g., > A number of operating systems have implemented various techniques to > deal with multiple interfaces. 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 > surrounding the use of multiple interfaces on hosts, document existing > practice, and make recommendations about best current practice. This has created some confusion with regards to what really is in scope. Are hosts with multiple physical interfaces in scope (obviously yes)? Are hosts with multiple virtual or physical interfaces in scope (yes)? Are hosts with one interface but multiple connections to different networks in scope (I think they should be)? Are we only talking about multiple interfaces or connections when they are to different administrative domains (I do not think it really matters, even in one domain the parameters can be different)? I would like to solicit suggestions on how to modify the text to be fully aligned. Note: we need to keep the name of the group the same, as it something that is already familiar to people, not to mention the fact that the IETF database system does not allow an acronym change very easily. Would it be enough to change s/multiple interfaces/connections to multiple networks/ in the second quoted text excerpt? Jari _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf