Jari Arkko a écrit :
But my main point is that the MIF charter covers -- on purpose -- a
relatively large problem area. We need to describe the problem as
experienced by real-life implementations without constraining ourselves
too much at this stage. Once we finally understand the problem fully,
then it is a time to start narrowing down the scope to something
implementable. However, we are not there yet. The WG needs to complete
its problem definition task first.
fully agree. I was going to write about the same thing!
Marc.
When it does, it may be that we no
longer need a specific WG and the rest can be handled in, say, DHC -- if
the chosen scope is just parameters conflicts, for instance.
I would also echo what Margaret said about this discussion being
excellent input for the problem definition work. From my point of view
I'd like to get the group chartered so that they can do that work, as
opposed to us writing the full problem definition into the charter. The
latter would consume quite a bit of IETF discussion list and AD cycles :-)
Jari
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf