Re: [mif] Questions in last 95th MIF meeting

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 25 April 2016 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FC212D523 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HZs8fKx69K-3 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C911C12D521 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7E284A2; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1461573644; bh=GwFVj0ys+Fku24OQqiJnEWNq9sY5d7oudXNIaJWEY7w=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Z1sKGsB/kOYQaCuGlRb0bIOeIdK/7+y7xaY6unsCG1Xju7R1PkEt50u598Jp087N0 g+E5VjTq96dNM/KfoJL3D3Mfj1bFVYQ85DQVgl6+Ogg1s8czt9mvPD3zHMcfYjv3Mn q/7B/U9mXGz8Vabu+MrnjXPbNXSlP+r2zC4ZN6Vg=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DC2A1; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5F7D3B1C-8F73-4EFF-BFB4-7D2ACB29B61C@gmx.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604251040050.16013@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <COL125-W6FE908A798F23A69D7D8DB16E0@phx.gbl> <5F7D3B1C-8F73-4EFF-BFB4-7D2ACB29B61C@gmx.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1891203780-1461573644=:16013"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/E4GOH_-WuZVPhPsauoJTHQWFSBk>
Cc: Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>, Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] Questions in last 95th MIF meeting
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:40:50 -0000

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Ian Farrer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Q1: Yes
> Q2: I think that rechartering is the only practical option here. The problem that we are trying to solve here doesn’t go away by delaying work on it.
> Q3: Yes

+1, but I already said that at the mic at IETF95.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se