Re: [mif] Updated charter

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I read this proposed new charter. It contains DHCP and DNS items as it is right now, so I have a bit hard time understanding "will be removed"? I read the charter as it is posted on http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/ and that one has a "1. dns server selection solution" that seems to have been removed, is that was the "will be removed" refers to?

The server selection document has been an RFC for a year or two now, and the router option really shouldn't have been a MIF work item to begin with, and caused a lot of trouble in the MIF working group before you arrived.   If we left it in in order to minimize changes, it would probably create more problems than it would avoid.

> I don't really understand this sentence. MIF could recommend new DHCP options, but nothing else? What if we feel a new RA option (for RFC6106 to work properly) or different behaviour of RA is warranted, is that out of scope? I feel this is quite a big limitation to put on ourselves. Perhaps wording such as "should try its hardest to find solutions that do not require changes to basic IP protocols" or something along those lines could steer work but not limit it? Or we just re-charter if we run into a dead-end and can't make it out unless we change something?

It should indeed mention RAs.   The point is that we don't assume that the host already has some way of dealing with the MIF problem, like a connection manager or something of that sort.   At least, I _think_ that's the point—Dmitry actually wrote that text, so he can probably explain better than I can.