Re: WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple interfaces (the "original view"), multiple default routers (the "routing view"), multiple addresses (the "IP layer view"), multiple administrative domains (the "operational view"), and so on.

I would like to make the point that there is no single, perfect answer. Its easy to find examples where the key issues above do not capture everything that we want to capture (see, e.g., George's response to Keith). Its really about the combination of these issues. And I think that is the way it should be.

The charter text that I sent out yesterday attempts to explain what the problem space is without prejudicing ourselves to a view from just one perspective (except perhaps through the group's acronym). I think the rest is work on the problem statement, and we should let the group write that.

The IESG telechat where this could be approved is two days away. Does someone have a big problem with the charter as written, serious enough to warrant a change?

Jari

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]