Subject: [mif] clarifications about route-option activities

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:33:50 +0100

Yes, route-option expired and maybe not to discuss about it here, I agree.

Independent of that.

I just want to clarify a few things.

I talked to opponents about this, and strong disagreement is still there.

But,

There was a request to write usecases and scenarios in the route-option
draft.  I said at the last meeting I would do.  I did, but not in the
route-option draft, but in my personal proposal draft-mouton; I dont
know how to update the WG item, not being an author.  It's not that I
dont want to do it, I just dont know where to do it.

A possible thing I could do further is to separate the idea of route
option from default route option.  What do you think?

I believe most opposition is against default route option, not
necessarily route option.  What do you think?

Also, I need to identify whether Vendor options, or INFORMATIONAL or
EXPERIMENTAL status can be used effectively to advance this work.  What
do you think?

Also, the metric comment from Ivo must be taken into account.

Alex

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:07:55 +0000

Alexandru, I'm going to reply to you off-list because I really don't want to see this discussion continue on MIF.   If there is interest from others on the list in discussing this, I am going to propose that we set up a non-wg list to discuss it; otherwise all the nice people who signed up to do MIF architecture work will be driven off by the discussion about the route option.

(If others are interested, I would like to mention that I am going to give Alexandru some constructive feedback, not give him a hard time—I fully understand the frustration that dropping this work has created, and as AD I'm not a bad person to talk to about that.)