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 > m...@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
