Re: [mif] Decision regarding MIF

Jouni Korhonen <> Mon, 09 May 2016 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07A512D55C for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVdTV47x3WDY for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6A2912D549 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c189so80499853pfb.3 for <>; Mon, 09 May 2016 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eEzAeoGNHDVweKjdkltILMYJ+kGSJMzQRyiLEn7lPsc=; b=SnGwVUNEoBkmsLEpfPH5mdkoda+6sMKMP8UuBTkmyvqpUSZLET+C2BUrHHVDM1CSBr lJIEDpuJtfN4q5o6PeD48lT0rnFSOoDa4qCe4P3UQYu8b+fstRP+izQHj5s0BBByUNNp +Vivl5MyMch99ablP9ug/IKa+Po26Ej7PHwF7z4AAdlyisPoVXH3FpWSEJHTUvyuHdgb X1fOox4CobEM4Dm7iWPcUrATbI85Fi2275DixAlB9mprtHcnMWUkH0zxkhA3EqPK+xEQ j77O2vN4fH56pghyL0vEyalMJbkEEv1IdOdUeVkyTMT9Cdzgyur9Dk+JGwt5dNyrASlg eBZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eEzAeoGNHDVweKjdkltILMYJ+kGSJMzQRyiLEn7lPsc=; b=SMN9A2y9AMGueQqnLX+WHOgkqa4M3kIZruMNsrVEpEo8Sddqg58mcd/pGKTlW4f0Cf B/5bQXhUEMb3bf0v3+uliSMlf2kWVPUtis3xqMia/PBxJRYAyAHIruBFnvAoAIlwMnNu Q4SUDN47bqEUYh9KZrnl2W8b3QZTCN5/n7LPRhZG5drakpU6vfK9SQD41Qnrobfrjk0l aRIsSDbbaJW5a21wh/1ZswZ0TOlf1zCpYKQJTUAAnz6hx/cioIe9Y0bIBobHVU43mkat T4zkLpwZ6UJk3XYATsGx4pMMw3yYlGwRCxqlPQrEziu2MB+RB84m8nDOcJFOf+f7YNND mtew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWUirt/waBRnoMzIG32DHeW97WBoChxYqMgpBF6wNquKBReADu83uQcScmyaGxmIg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p77mr51837852pfa.75.1462813649341; Mon, 09 May 2016 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id h1sm41831714pfh.49.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 May 2016 10:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>, Terry Manderson <>
From: Jouni Korhonen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:07:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] Decision regarding MIF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 17:07:31 -0000

My take is that anything "mobility" related can be hosted in DMM (within 
the limits of the charter, of course). The coordination part as pointed 
out by Mikael is a bit of a challenge.

- Jouni (DMM co-chair)

5/9/2016, 12:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson kirjoitti:
> On Sun, 8 May 2016, Terry Manderson wrote:
>> I will be closing the MIF Working Group, however I will be leaving the
>> Mailing List open for ongoing discussion.
> Hi,
> With the MIF working group closed, where should work in this area be done?
> I don't really care where the work is done, as long as it gets done.
> Since we're seeing people show up with solutions and request these to be
> implemented (draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost for instance), I'd like to see
> this being coordinated somewhere. Or is there no agreement that this
> should be coordinated?
> Because I don't think we'll find the best technical architecture overall
> by working groups independently coming up with solutions in the same
> space and then go and request L3 protocol enhancements individually
> without overall coordination. In my view, this would mean that either
> nothing gets done (because 6MAN will say no), or we get too many
> solutions in the same problem space leading to fragmentation and
> different technologies not playing nice with each other.
> So while I realise why you've made your decision, this is the one
> question that is still left unanswered for me.