From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Wed Dec 4 14:58:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8441AE19F for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbUfymZTvEay for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og129.obsmtp.com (exprod7og129.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631DF1AE120 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob129.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUp+zo5tzbyEz8z5x7r7JiAXNsTYzdfWg@postini.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:58:43 PST Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5C91B82DC for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53415190043 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:58:43 -0800 From: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:58:41 -0500 To: MIF Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Subject: [mif] Charter update. X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:58:47 -0000 I just hacked the charter to address some comments raised by ADs during = review. You can see the current version of the charter here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mif/ The changes are the addition of a new item 6, and an explicit definition = of Provisioning Domain in item 1. It's possible that additional changes will occur before the IESG review = completes. I should know by tomorrow afternoon. If you have time, I = would appreciate review of the two changes I just made; otherwise, the = working group can comment and complain during IETF review as well, but = bear in mind that IETF review is generally only a week. From swmike@swm.pp.se Wed Dec 4 19:45:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379721AE18C for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:45:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s7pQeCNb1luK for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B3D1AE185 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 657B8A1; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:45:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1029C; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:45:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:45:48 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] Charter update. X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 03:45:55 -0000 On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Ted Lemon wrote: > I just hacked the charter to address some comments raised by ADs during review. You can see the current version of the charter here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mif/ > > The changes are the addition of a new item 6, and an explicit definition of Provisioning Domain in item 1. > > It's possible that additional changes will occur before the IESG review completes. I should know by tomorrow afternoon. If you have time, I would appreciate review of the two changes I just made; otherwise, the working group can comment and complain during IETF review as well, but bear in mind that IETF review is generally only a week. I read item 6 and it looks fine to me. The dates in the milestones are out of date, are these going to be revised automatically or how does that work? Also, the "dhcpv6 routing configuration option" isn't mentioned in the charter apart from as a milestone, is this a relic of old version of the charter? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Thu Dec 5 06:59:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF2F1AE036 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xoc1-9ucSQgI for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075391AE034 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUqCUxIcSrxGzuh4hv0j2+s83GHdd2Z/B@postini.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 06:59:17 PST Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B721B8294 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085E190043; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:59:16 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:59:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] Charter update. X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:59:22 -0000 On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson = wrote: > The dates in the milestones are out of date, are these going to be = revised automatically or how does that work? Also, the "dhcpv6 routing = configuration option" isn't mentioned in the charter apart from as a = milestone, is this a relic of old version of the charter? The chairs need to update the milestones. They are woefully out of = date. From denghui02@gmail.com Thu Dec 5 08:02:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825301AE071 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZW7dZwZR8Bf5 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x236.google.com (mail-ve0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83591AE07C for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:02:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id jy13so14170350veb.13 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:02:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CbZffyTA1h0FdOxO+KnYRHGBCz8YeH+xdmio/BJA8Z8=; b=h6q3cEoTT1/NnUrN9gubjkVY0BuQEYw6yPc7dP9M4hsWTAe+Bx32fzBx2e28ta5yJK qbH4gAmBCoOVjENwHrVfYfT9+dXuY2+NVAo1bL/OThEqeHOnbMFxBVigsvHVGcewN7xZ pOAU/fE1lJsh0U7758TG6U19iQegru04AMKxYLX+5P+CKh7ZTgPsuyc9DzWOUPpfg2C7 FrTKdl3HFWzwul7KOJuGpbM5KGGX/LNbduG1rGW0P0tBApgHxtzklkhAsUV1UiEbvkut 8Cw9Sa2cqcVkcYpYiIYpHYD0WMIs6ALHmd/E/qwVvQwkOfTVZRwuudtSt3bKslBhiU3T xINw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.227.165 with SMTP id sb5mr1191463vdc.85.1386259330895; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.167.65 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:02:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 00:02:10 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111d800fc417904eccba61c Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] Charter update. X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:02:21 -0000 --089e0111d800fc417904eccba61c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Excuse me for late, I will do it tomorrow. thanks for ur waiting. -Hui 2013/12/5 Ted Lemon > On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > The dates in the milestones are out of date, are these going to be > revised automatically or how does that work? Also, the "dhcpv6 routing > configuration option" isn't mentioned in the charter apart from as a > milestone, is this a relic of old version of the charter? > > The chairs need to update the milestones. They are woefully out of date. > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > --089e0111d800fc417904eccba61c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Excuse me for late, I will do it tomorrow. thanks for= ur waiting.
=A0
-Hui


2013/12/5 Ted Lemon <ted.lemon= @nominum.com>
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:45 P= M, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp= .se> wrote:
> The dates in the milestones are out of date, are these going to be rev= ised automatically or how does that work? Also, the "dhcpv6 routing co= nfiguration option" isn't mentioned in the charter apart from as a= milestone, is this a relic of old version of the charter?

The chairs need to update the milestones. =A0 They are woefully out o= f date.

_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

--089e0111d800fc417904eccba61c-- From denghui02@gmail.com Fri Dec 6 06:20:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A200E1AE39F for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:20:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i2Q1X8isHR2D for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171E91AE3AD for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jw12so813905veb.17 for ; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:20:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Ocq0/uoTnNfZDpKPP4FPFeBq+oMoqDNZAmt9uNHo6es=; b=RFH5+WATq+BcXkM88VDlf5D2c88E2zsmoopFDFtZ1Hicfe5ysD4sGyqDoJAm+Lasmc /UPpif0340tCI77O06P+1o1L3WpLhsbJ/JU1Z9dIJuq6ctFK++dIpZmaBWg21vitxWyz IfBr9hx/DIpu+TcFSIp5f1lgFzKdlBxS6OTM7rqYDcYaLTMOMi+BhADtVb3tRHSR+Tup VFy+gLqKJdnXyj/JIrvddBQm7HSLEeplhyDYZ9WufLPHlv7RZ1arjWDkJS2iX7g3DYs9 +olu1G9ETo3OLTthpWrsMuCCaMmFcX+4TOtDq5T0b4bezYKN58Yq5fLAwyMfYlj9SAtd joCg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.169.203 with SMTP id a11mr2068998vcz.26.1386339605155; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:20:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.167.65 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:20:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:20:05 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: MIF Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6721c4b445d304ecde57b2 Subject: [mif] MIF milestone X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:20:10 -0000 --047d7b6721c4b445d304ecde57b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello all Please feel free to comments on the milestone below, thanks a lot: -Hui Done WG chartered Done Initial draft on problem statement adopted by the WG Done Initial draft on existing practices adopted by the WG Done Problem statement draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done Existing practices draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done Initial WG draft on advanced DNS server selection solution Done Initial WG draft on MIF API extension Done DNS server selection draft submitted to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Mar 2014 Initial draft on MPvD architecture adopted by the WG Mar 2014 Initial draft on the requirements for change of DHCPv6 and ND adopted by the WG Mar 2014 Initial draft on the guidance to applications adopted by the WG Jul 2014 MPvD Architecture draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jul 2014 Requirements for change of DHCPv6 and ND submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jul 2014 MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jul 2014 Initial draft on DHCPv6 and ND extention adopted by the WG Jul 2014 Initial draft on high level MIF API adopted by the WG Jul 2014 Initial draft on format and usage of PvD ID adoped by the WG Nov 2014 Guidance to applications submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC --047d7b6721c4b445d304ecde57b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all
=A0
Please feel free to= comments on the milestone below, thanks a lot:
=A0
-Hu= i

Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 WG chartered
Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ini= tial draft on problem statement adopted by the WG
Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Initial draft on existing practices adopted by the WGDone=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Problem statement draft submitted to the IESG for pub= lication as an Informational RFC
Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Existing practices = draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC
Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Initial WG draft on advanced DNS server selection solut= ion
Done=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Initial WG draft on MIF API extension
Done=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 DNS server selection draft submitted to IESG for publication a= s a Proposed Standard RFC
Mar 2014=A0 Initial draft on MPvD architecture adopted by the WG
Mar 201= 4=A0 Initial draft on the requirements for change of DHCPv6 and ND adopted = by the WG
Mar 2014=A0 Initial draft on the guidance to applications adop= ted by the WG
Jul 2014=A0 MPvD Architecture draft submitted to the IESG for publication a= s an Informational RFC
Jul 2014=A0 Requirements for change of DHCPv6 and= ND submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC
Jul 20= 14=A0 MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informationa= l RFC
Jul 2014=A0 Initial draft on DHCPv6 and ND extention adopted by the WG
J= ul 2014=A0 Initial draft on high level MIF API adopted by the WG
Jul 201= 4=A0 Initial draft on format and usage of PvD ID adoped by the WG
Nov 20= 14=A0 Guidance to applications submitted to the IESG for publication as an = Informational RFC
=A0
--047d7b6721c4b445d304ecde57b2-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Dec 6 09:15:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF1F1AE0A9; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:15:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLYodNefyntS; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D754A1AE0F7; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:15:17 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131206171517.6746.17138.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:15:17 -0800 Cc: mif WG Subject: [mif] WG Review: Multiple Interfaces (mif) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:15:21 -0000 The Multiple Interfaces (mif) working group in the Internet Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-12-16. Multiple Interfaces (mif) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Active WG Chairs: Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng Assigned Area Director: Ted Lemon Mailing list Address: mif@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif Charter: Nodes attached to multiple networks may encounter problems due to conflict of network configuration information and/or simultaneous use of the multiple available networks. This can happen over multiple physical network interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or tunnels), or even indirectly through multiple default routers being on the same link. For instance, current laptops and smartphones typically have multiple access network interfaces. The MIF problem statement document [RFC6418] enumerates the problems into 3 categories: 1. Lack of consistent and distinctive management of configuration elements, associated with different networks. 2. Inappropriate mixed use of configuration elements, associated with different networks, in the course of a particular network activity / connection. 3. Use of a particular network, not consistent with the intent of the scenario / involved parties, leading to connectivity failure and / or other undesired consequences. The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the architecture detailing how devices attach to and operate in multiple networks. The group shall also analyze how applications can be influenced by these existing mechanisms. The WG shall employ and refer to existing IETF work in this area, including, for instance, strong/weak models (RFC 1122), default address selection (RFC 6724), ICE and other mechanisms higher layers can use for address selection, DHCP mechanisms, Router Advertisement mechanisms, and DNS recommendations. The focus of the working group should be on documenting the system level effects to host IP stacks and identification of gaps between the existing IETF recommendations and existing practice. Having completed some of its initial goals the group is also developing the following: 1. An incrementally deployable architecture, defining a consistent approach and recommended practices for handling sets of network configuration objects by hosts, attached to multiple networks, which enable hosts to improve network connectivity for the host's applications and users. Each of these sets of network configuration objects is referred to collectively as a provisioning domain (PVD). 2. A set of requirements for changes to or the uses of protocols, that provide network configuration information, to enable improved handling of multiple sets of network configuration in networks and hosts. For example, requirements for DHCPv6 options, Neighbor Discovery options etc. to communicate association of the configuration information with particular networks. 3. In cooperation with other working groups, uses of existing protocols in accordance with the requirements produced under item 2. Any changes of function of protocols are out of scope. 4. A MIF API: While no changes are required for applications to run on multiple interface hosts, a new API could provide additional services to applications running on hosts attached to multiple networks. For instance, these services could assist advanced applications in having greater control over first-hop, source address and/or DNS resolver, interface and other network configuration element selection. This API will be defined as an abstract interface specification. That is, specific details about mapping to operating system primitives or programming languages will be left out, and the API will not be specified in terms of familiar APIs (e.g., "BSD sockets API"). In addition to the new API, the behavior of existing APIs may be changed to improve the behavior of unmodified applications. 5. Guidelines to applications, to provide an improved connectivity experience when the host is attached to multiple networks or there is a change in the set of networks the host is attached to, e.g., via MIF API usage. 6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces. 7. A specification for the format, generation and usage of PVD IDs. Network discovery and selection on lower layers as defined by RFC 5113 is out of scope. With the exception of identifying requirements for additional DHCPv6 and/or ND options, as well as requirements for possible related changes in these protocols, the group shall not assume any software beyond basic IP protocol support on its peers or in network hosts. No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on mechanisms that require peer or network support for moving traffic flows such as RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of addresses in Mobile IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms. Future work in this area requires rechartering the working group or asking other, specialized working groups (such as DHC or 6MAN) to deal with specific issues. Milestones: Done - WG chartered Done - Initial draft on problem statement adopted by the WG Done - Initial draft on existing practices adopted by the WG Done - Initial draft on analysis of existing practices adopted by the WG Done - Problem statement draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Existing practices draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Dec 2010 - Initial WG draft on DHCPv6 option for routing configuration Jan 2011 - Analysis draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jan 2011 - Initial WG draft on advanced DNS server selection solution Jan 2011 - Initial WG draft on MIF API extension Mar 2011 - Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jun 2011 - Submit DHCPv6 routing configuration option to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Nov 2011 - Submit advanced DNS server selection solution to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Sat Dec 7 17:09:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14741AE46E for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:09:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w-F0S65okx2O for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D211AE473 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:09:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: mif@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131208010947.15602.43112.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:09:47 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:17:25 -0800 Subject: [mif] Milestones changed for mif WG X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 01:09:49 -0000 Deleted milestone "Initial draft on analysis of existing practices adopted by the WG". Deleted milestone "Initial WG draft on DHCPv6 option for routing configuration". Deleted milestone "Analysis draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC". Changed milestone "Initial WG draft on advanced DNS server selection solution", resolved as "Done". Changed milestone "Initial WG draft on MIF API extension", resolved as "Done". Deleted milestone "Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC". Changed milestone "Submit advanced DNS server selection solution to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC", resolved as "Done". Deleted milestone "Submit DHCPv6 routing configuration option to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC". URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/ From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Sat Dec 7 17:36:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899071AE47D for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:36:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E2JA5dhXGB4y for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFC51AE47F for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:36:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: mif@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131208013605.15602.55626.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:36:05 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [mif] Milestones changed for mif WG X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 01:36:08 -0000 Changed milestone " Initial draft on MPvD architecture adopted by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "Initial draft on the requirements for changes to DHCPv6 and ND adopted by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone " Initial draft on the guidance to applications adopted by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "MPvD Architecture draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "Requirements for changes to DHCPv6 and ND submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone " Initial draft on DHCPv6 and ND extention adopted by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "Initial draft on high level MIF API adopted by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "Initial draft on format and usage of PvD ID adoped by the WG", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "Guidance to applications submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/ From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Dec 10 08:15:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E780F1ADFB1 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8PSwzp7lhxZO for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48ADC1ADF4F for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BF72018D; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9FC0863B89; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:15:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F56763848; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:15:03 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Ted Lemon , mif WG In-Reply-To: <20131206171517.6746.17138.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20131206171517.6746.17138.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple Interfaces (mif) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:15:18 -0000 --=-=-= >will be defined as an abstract interface specification. That is, >specific details about mapping to operating system primitives or >programming languages will be left out, and the API will **not** be specified >in terms of familiar APIs (e.g., "BSD sockets API"). In addition to the I want to be sure that this **not** above intended here. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUqc+BIqHRg3pndX9AQLcnwP+LtAD256Q2pBFq8rSgl4/Sx6SsIXpDJIl gzyf6slHTMlkQZwRAVbwzmTQ8CUbo+mHXnNfszHWuvkLUv1LM0KEidEoK/UTVdRe QPspK/phJR/r9EqmQzpqbGNxpTak1IXP3CSEiI2iCQ1LvHSB+kFEpDdLig5Y2Rtq wEbNyeJQLaw= =RCNY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Tue Dec 10 08:59:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C411ADFBE for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:59:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qqFIlgiLRrZU for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3691ADF73 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUqdITmnMB2gNq07ecINgZ1IY5KpkwTDh@postini.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:54 PST Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC081B82D0 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153EF190043; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from vpna-132.vpn.nominum.com (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:58:53 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <9713.1386692103@sandelman.ca> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:58:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <66352022-C670-4737-BE01-29809603BA13@nominum.com> References: <20131206171517.6746.17138.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9713.1386692103@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10] Cc: mif WG Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple Interfaces (mif) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:59:01 -0000 On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Michael Richardson = wrote: > I want to be sure that this **not** above intended here. Correct. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Dec 20 11:04:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1DD1ADF9B; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:04:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTnUnR62t9kZ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3D41ADFBD; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:03:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.84 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131220190359.10827.82580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:03:59 -0800 Cc: mif WG Subject: [mif] WG Action: Rechartered Multiple Interfaces (mif) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:04:02 -0000 The Multiple Interfaces (mif) working group in the Internet Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. Multiple Interfaces (mif) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Active WG Chairs: Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng Assigned Area Director: Ted Lemon Mailing list Address: mif@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif Charter: Nodes attached to multiple networks may encounter problems due to conflict of network configuration information and/or simultaneous use of the multiple available networks. This can happen over multiple physical network interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or tunnels), or even indirectly through multiple default routers being on the same link. For instance, current laptops and smartphones typically have multiple access network interfaces. The MIF problem statement document [RFC6418] enumerates the problems into 3 categories: 1. Lack of consistent and distinctive management of configuration elements, associated with different networks. 2. Inappropriate mixed use of configuration elements, associated with different networks, in the course of a particular network activity / connection. 3. Use of a particular network, not consistent with the intent of the scenario / involved parties, leading to connectivity failure and / or other undesired consequences. The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the architecture detailing how devices attach to and operate in multiple networks. The group shall also analyze how applications can be influenced by these existing mechanisms. The WG shall employ and refer to existing IETF work in this area, including, for instance, strong/weak models (RFC 1122), default address selection (RFC 6724), ICE and other mechanisms higher layers can use for address selection, DHCP mechanisms, Router Advertisement mechanisms, and DNS recommendations. The focus of the working group should be on documenting the system level effects to host IP stacks and identification of gaps between the existing IETF recommendations and existing practice. Having completed some of its initial goals the group is also developing the following: 1. An incrementally deployable architecture, defining a consistent approach and recommended practices for handling sets of network configuration objects by hosts, attached to multiple networks, which enable hosts to improve network connectivity for the host's applications and users. Each of these sets of network configuration objects is referred to collectively as a provisioning domain (PVD). 2. A set of requirements for changes to or the uses of protocols, that provide network configuration information, to enable improved handling of multiple sets of network configuration in networks and hosts. For example, requirements for DHCPv6 options, Neighbor Discovery options etc. to communicate association of the configuration information with particular networks. 3. In cooperation with other working groups, uses of existing protocols in accordance with the requirements produced under item 2. Any changes of function of protocols are out of scope. 4. A MIF API: While no changes are required for applications to run on multiple interface hosts, a new API could provide additional services to applications running on hosts attached to multiple networks. For instance, these services could assist advanced applications in having greater control over first-hop, source address and/or DNS resolver, interface and other network configuration element selection. This API will be defined as an abstract interface specification. That is, specific details about mapping to operating system primitives or programming languages will be left out, and the API will not be specified in terms of familiar APIs (e.g., "BSD sockets API"). In addition to the new API, the behavior of existing APIs may be changed to improve the behavior of unmodified applications. 5. Guidelines to applications, to provide an improved connectivity experience when the host is attached to multiple networks or there is a change in the set of networks the host is attached to, e.g., via MIF API usage. 6. The MIF working group will document either as part of the MIF API specification, as part of the MIF architecture document, or in a separate document, the issues and requirements for a high-level MIF user interface that would allow the user to exert control over how individual applications or application roles make use of different provisioning domains and network interfaces. 7. A specification for the format, generation and usage of PVD IDs. Network discovery and selection on lower layers as defined by RFC 5113 is out of scope. With the exception of identifying requirements for additional DHCPv6 and/or ND options, as well as requirements for possible related changes in these protocols, the group shall not assume any software beyond basic IP protocol support on its peers or in network hosts. No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on mechanisms that require peer or network support for moving traffic flows such as RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of addresses in Mobile IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms. Future work in this area requires rechartering the working group or asking other, specialized working groups (such as DHC or 6MAN) to deal with specific issues. Milestones: Done - WG chartered Done - Initial draft on problem statement adopted by the WG Done - Initial draft on existing practices adopted by the WG Done - Initial draft on analysis of existing practices adopted by the WG Done - Problem statement draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Done - Existing practices draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Dec 2010 - Initial WG draft on DHCPv6 option for routing configuration Jan 2011 - Analysis draft submitted to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jan 2011 - Initial WG draft on advanced DNS server selection solution Jan 2011 - Initial WG draft on MIF API extension Mar 2011 - Submit MIF API extension solution to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC Jun 2011 - Submit DHCPv6 routing configuration option to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Nov 2011 - Submit advanced DNS server selection solution to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC