Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889 modifications

reshmi r <> Tue, 24 August 2010 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD31E3A685E for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id he5s5zyrv0Br for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32E33A67C3 for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so953113wwe.13 for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=aPUFkCmeBCtvjd+9IRpupoAU24UmwJTuurA0vwb2P6A=; b=DpbyYnYVii26b+/zlYxklDJ3CZR0N2dZM0SxUJxUD9lO6fJTaXWR7EbMWt1XOjDeoH KnLbTadnjeJg17esfvC+kfYvueZQf89/53N7y00jBmGIMjEATRU8MrlSu/mdejCjFkha xToUS0p+NZawFQ2EEFv4osBdh7zLq82Xn/KkI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=peZDiBpw792XvU+o8119im7ReLi0VLgzOryQNOulbGZVGNa5bJKkkZw7dz+Yfo42fX ZAJ8KT3jkTZGkEHDrwA5u1UcExQkNCIYgvsFozE6gWr6pwZriY8GCUDDCXHADY40OGjy pM2WZ4FOn/eKhqCyX+kT0puEh8bhRy0hS1w3o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r18mr5400902wbt.53.1282625079461; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:14:39 +0530
Message-ID: <>
From: reshmi r <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Closing summary on consensus-call for RFC5889 modifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:44:13 -0000

Hi Teco,

Do they really mean a model for the autoconfiguration and is there is
no role for host in autoconfiguration??........the topic goes in to
real debate. what was the final outcome of the discussion???.

Hi All,

Can anyone finalise the suggested outcomes of the discussion??Do you
all really mean that the routers only need to do the autoconfiguration
and the nodes have no role in it??? If so how can we believe a router
to be genuine and how can we ensure that the router will never become
selfish??? so there should be some role in hosts to monitor the
traffic behaviour of router and the host should be able to notify with
some protocol mechanism. do you all really mean to change the title???
I strongly disagree with this.


Hi Thomas,

On the title change, I remember in Maastricht all accept one
preferred the title change. On the list as well.
There are two arguments.
1) it is _a_ model
2) the model doesn't support hosts, or at least not very well
On the latter, there was a discussion without outcome.

Regards, Teco