Re: [Autoconf] Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

> Does this proposal mean the autoconf group will not work on a
distributed 
> address configuration scheme for mesh networks ?

Same question, except I'd stick with the terminology ad hoc network.
A centralised distribution mechanism is a very poor fit to much of
what's attractive about an ad hoc network, and a very poor fit (due
to having a single point of failure) to many application areas for
ad hoc networks.

This is not the direction I for one had hoped that the Autoconf WG
would go in. I note the reference to "future extensions", but first
I assume that this is not chartered work, and second that forces
decentralised work into a certain shape, rather than working from
the problem more generally.

I appreciate that the WG can only work on solutions that people are
prepared to work on, and unfortunately I can't offer the effort needed
to make a concrete alternative proposal. I think however I've put in
at least my share of work in the Manet WG.

Incidentally the charter refers to RFC 5889, which is not yet published.
I see that is in AUTH48, but noted as on hold for a technical issue.
AUTH48 seems rather late for a technical issue, unless meaning a
publication technical issue rather than an engineering technical issue.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************