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 > that. > > 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 as representative. 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. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf