Subject: [mif] Decision regarding MIF

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 22:56:50 +0000

WG,

As AD I have been following the WG recharter/position discussion with much
interest.

My observations are these:
	
	* There are great suggestions of what MIF could work on.
	* These suggestions are interesting topics and might lead to great places.
	* There is a small group of people that supports these topics.
	* There is currently not a sufficient critical mass of participants to
assist in and review that work.

My decision is this.

While the work is interesting, there is not a sufficiently sized cohort to
carry this work through the standards process.
I could certainly speculate why that might be, but would prefer to keep to
the facts. This is simply where we are.

I will be closing the MIF Working Group, however I will be leaving the
Mailing List open for ongoing discussion.
I will AD shepherd any remaining milestone MIF documents when they come to
me.
At a later date when a sufficiently sized cohort exists that is committed
to see the work done either I, my co-ad, or my successor (if that is the
case) has the option ability to re-open and recharter MIF.

I would like to express my sincere thanks appreciation to both Hui and
Margaret, as co-chairs, for doing everything they could to ignite the
passion in MIF.
 
A hearty "Thank You" also goes to the active authors, contributors,
participants, and supporters of MIF. The IETF is a community and you are a
valuable part of that community.

I expect to see more of MIF at some point in the future.

Thanks
Terry
(Wearing the INT AD Fez)

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 09:10:08 +0200 (CEST)

> 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. 
INTAREA?

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.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:14:01 +0900

This past weekend I worked on splitting my pvd api doc into 2 docs (as
requested back in Yokohama).  FWIW, I was thinking to send them to
intarea when they're done being separated.

On 9 May 2016 at 16:10, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:07:22 -0700

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:
> 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.
>

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:23:27 +0000

Hi Mikael,

>I don't really care where the work is done, as long as it gets done.

I doubt there is a one place for everything as some topics do appear to
have strong correlation to existing WGs. However, yes INTAREA would be the
default location for topics not already solidly in play.

That said, I'm very open to talking about what and where on a case by case
basis.

[..]
>that is still left unanswered for me.

Does this help address that concern?

Cheers
Terry