[mif] next step for MIF PVD configuration

Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com> Mon, 29 February 2016 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA781B2F88 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:21:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.345
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YUkV1Z87jCyg for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from COL004-OMC2S7.hotmail.com (col004-omc2s7.hotmail.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E41E1B2F87 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from COL125-W39 ([]) by COL004-OMC2S7.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:21:25 -0800
X-TMN: [h+g1bTMfIuKiO9V1GaNjI0IFD7pgr7Itgcx+uBGRWek=]
X-Originating-Email: [denghui02@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <COL125-W396ADD4D31445DAE7867D3B1BA0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_0ff35994-9a42-48de-a748-ad3e382c9207_"
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>, Margaret <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:21:24 +0800
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Feb 2016 10:21:25.0239 (UTC) FILETIME=[F19B7870:01D172DA]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/qUXR_x8Xphdae5pEKW-6j5wcDsU>
Subject: [mif] next step for MIF PVD configuration
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 29 Feb 2016 10:21:30 -0000

Hello all
We had the concensus already about droping DHCP MPVD ID document, based on this, here chairs would like to understand whether MIF WGhas achieved the concensus on below two steps to deliver MPVD conf.1) step 1: using RA to get MPVD ID information2) step 2: using DNS to get other MPVD configuration.
Thanks for your feedback