Re: [mif] The formation of the design team

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]> writes:
    >> 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.

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

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

I actually did look at the WG datatracker page to try and see if I could
find such a document before I asked.... I guess I missed finding it
as I was looking for "architecture", not "problem statement"
RFC6418.

I guess "Ted Lemon presented" slides are:
  http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-mif-1.pdf

  "The	solution requires fundamental changes in	
  the default architecture of IP stacks"

I think that this is the "architecture" problem then?

The question is I think, how to architect the IP stack such that the bag
of things that make up a provisioning domain can be collected together
properly, and expressed in a concise enough way that an application can
actually say "use this provisioning domain".

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [