Current Practices for Multiple-Interface Hosts
RFC 6419

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-25 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I agree with Adrian's Discuss.

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-26)
No email
send info
I support Adrian's DISCUSS and would like to hear why the details
of the specific operating systems are included.

I'm also a little confused, as I was when reading the problem
statement draft, about the scope of the documents, based
on the WG charter.  Is the scope focused on dealing with
"configuration objects" from different "provisioning domains"
or is it more broadly issues related to multiple simultaneously
active interfaces?

Also, the problem statement document, referenced in this
document, talks about "provisioning domains" and "attachment
to a provisioning domain", while this document says nothing
about provisioning domains.  In my opinion, it would strengthen
the documents if this document provided some additional
motivation for the discussion of provisioning domains in the
problem statement document.

Include a citation for the MIF problem statement at the first
reference in section 1.

The Introduction include OS X in the list of operating systems for
which information has been collected, but I don't see any specific
information (or even any other references) to OS X.

Why are Linux and BSD-based operating systems together in
section 3.2.2, when many of the details are different?

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
In section 2, I was left a bit confused because I think you reversed the sense of the opening sentences of 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Are you describing the approach, or summarizing which OSs use which approach? I think you meant to do the former. For example, in 2.1, do desktop OSs ever use centralized connection management? If not, perhaps this would be a better opening for 2.1:

   A centralized connection manager does network interface selection
   based on application or user input. This approach to dealing with
   multiple interfaces is employed by many mobile handset operating

Similarly for 2.2 and 2.3. I *think* each of these are simply describing the approach.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I support Adrian's DISCUSS and Ralph's COMMENT. 

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection