Re: [mif] The formation of the design team

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

> I think the real question is whether the architecture issue
> that underlies MIF can actually be solved within the limits
> of an IETF WG. But certainly the first stage is to produce a
> clear statement of what the issue is, and I would press the
> design team to bring that statement back to the WG *before*
> considering possible solutions.

There are already two sources of information about "the problem" available:

(1) The problem statement we published last year.
(2) The slides Ted Lemon presented in Orlando.

I don't see how we would benefit from going through another multi-year effort to identify "the problem".  Maybe it is true that when we start looking at the solution space, we will decide that there is no tractable way to solve the problem, but we'll never figure that out if we don't look at the solution space at some point…

There are already solutions out there that solve (parts of) the problem, too, and we attempted to document those, as well.

> BTW, it's normal for a design team to have a sort of mini-charter
> that consists of more than two words.


In my experience, design teams have varied a lot both in formality and organization.  During the first call, we will talk to the design team about how we want to organize ourselves.

Like all design teams, of course, anything the team produces will just be input to the WG…  We would need WG consensus to adopt it or publish it.

Margaret