Subject: [dns-dir] recharter of the MIF working group

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:51:33 +0300

Secretary (Bcced),

Please put the rechartering of the MIF working group to the agenda of 
the next IESG telechat (see below for a link that contains the new charter).

IESG, directorates, all,

After completion of the main parts of their current charter and 
extensive discussions in IETF-78 and on the list, we are considering 
adding three protocol extensions to the charter of the MIF working 
group. These changes are in the intersection of DNS/MIF and 
DHCP/routing/MIF behaviour. Please see the suggested changes here:

http://www.arkko.com/ietf/mif/newcharter.txt
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/mif/charterdiff.html

Comments appreciated.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:07:24 +0300

Spencer,

>
> and I'm not sure what "outside the scope" means - I could imagine 
> "outside the scope of
>
> - this work item"
> - solutions based on the DHCPv6 protocol"
> - this working group"

All of the above :-) ... I can make it clearer in a next rev.

Jari

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:04:25 -0500

Hi, Jari,

I think the proposed charter is OK, given the exchange you've already had
with Dave Thaler.

I'm looking at the following text:

DHCPv6 routing configuration: a
specification of DHCPv6 options allowing to provision client nodes
with small amount of static routing information (e.g. regarding
first-hop selection). The development of dynamic routing capabilities
or ability to send more than a few specific routes are explicitly
outside the scope, and require the use of either existing or new
routing protocols.

and I'm not sure what "outside the scope" means - I could imagine "outside 
the scope of

- this work item"

and there are probably other choices. Could I suggest (taking a guess at 
what you meant - please adjust as necessary):

"... are explicitly out of scope for DHCPv6-based solutions, and would 
require the client node to participate in either existing or new routing 
protocols"

?

Thanks,

Spencer