Excerpts from Margaret Wasserman on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 10:29:07AM -0400: > Lars Eggert wrote: >> On 2009-4-22, at 2:19, Christian Vogt wrote: >>> It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal >>> topics for inclusion in the MIF charter: >>> >>> - Conflicts between configuration parameters. >>> >>> - Issues with address selection. >> >> I agree that both of these are important and should be worked on (and >> with the rest of your email, basically). >> >> The first one is what I thought MIF would be focusing on, as an INT WG >> is IMO the right venue for this. >> >> The second one is also important, but much more tricky, because it >> ties in with transports and applications (as Keith and others have >> pointed out already). Topics that cross area boundaries are always a >> bit difficult to charter. I'm at this point not fully convinced that >> simply throwing this in with topic #1 into one WG is going to work. > > I disagree with your conclusion for two reasons: > > (1) As I pointed out in my previous message to Christian, address > selection is not (today) a transport-layer or application-layer function > in most cases. Given that this is currently an Internet-layer function, > I think it makes sense to analyze the issues with address selection (as > part of the whole address/interface/router selection process) in an > Internet Area group. If we find that one of the problems we have is > that the Internet layer doesn't have the right information to make these > decisions, then possibly some follow-on work might need to be chartered > elsewhere. > > (2) There is no way that these decisions can be made solely at the > transport or application layer, because source (and to a lesser degree > destination) address selection is tightly tied to the first-hop > forwarding decision. The outbound interface, source address and default > router all have to be selected in a coordinate process, to avoid sending > traffic that will be discarded on the outbound path, due to router > filters. > > So, while agree that address selection affects transport layers and > applications, and that it might be necessary for transport layers and > applications to have better ways of influencing it, I do not believe > that address selection is a transport layer or applications layer > function today, nor do I think it can be done solely at those layers in > the future. > > Margaret The first problem (configuration conflicts) is best dealt with before the second problem (address selection) even arises. First I initialize my interface, and then I use it. They impinge on each other but they are not tightly bound to each other -- they do not have to be worked on in the same Working Group. I suggest chartering MIF to focus on problem #1, let it make progress, and in the meantime figure out how to organize work on problem #2 in parallel. Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf