Overall, I think the charter is good enough and we should ship it. A few minor comments. > 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. Nit: this last point isn't really accurate. Having two routers on a network doesn't mean one is attached to "multiple networks". The "multiple" is at least one hop away in this case... > 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. Specifically, issues arise (only) when the information is in some sense contradictory, forcing the host to make decisions about which object to use under various circumstances. This is the root cause of all the problems being discussed. > 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. Charter does seem to say here that BCP documents will be an output. That goes beyond just describing the problem. Personally, I'm skeptical that there is much in this space being done today that would qualify as a BCP recommendation. But that is something that we can figure out definitively when the WG tries to produce such a document and we see what they are actually recommending. So, as long as it is clear that one possible outcome is that no BCP is possible at the current time, I'm OK with going forward. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf