Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 04 March 2009 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B633A6A48; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:19:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wiCJ8rcoDJ6; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpsmtp-eml18.kpnxchange.com (hpsmtp-eml18.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9849A3A6874; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:19:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.101]) by hpsmtp-eml18.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:20:10 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml101.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:20:10 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Ulrich Herberg'" <ulrich.herberg@polytechnique.edu>
References: <20090304163257.82E843A6B2E@core3.amsl.com> <49AEBBEA.7020400@gmail.com> <000001c99cfe$0d927ca0$28b775e0$@nl> <49AEDBB5.8090408@polytechnique.edu>
In-Reply-To: <49AEDBB5.8090408@polytechnique.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:20:10 +0100
Message-ID: <000801c99d17$61b350c0$2519f240$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmdApfbCzIfIZ8GRbeHTr+OUZ8kJQAFEyVg
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2009 22:20:10.0595 (UTC) FILETIME=[61B6D330:01C99D17]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, T.Clausen@computer.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:19:45 -0000

I agree on not mentioning an endless list of routing protocols.
I was not precise in my reply, I agreed on not rely on OLSR or DYMO. I
forgot to mention the list should not be in the charter.
Being independent on routing protocols was in the previous charter, that was
OK for me.

Teco.


|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich@herberg.name] Namens Ulrich Herberg
|Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 20:51
|Aan: Teco Boot
|CC: 'Alexandru Petrescu'; autoconf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org;
|T.Clausen@computer.org
|Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network
|Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
|
|Inline
|
|Teco Boot wrote:
|> Inline.
|>
|> |-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|> |Van: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org]
|Namens
|> |Alexandru Petrescu
|> |Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2009 18:36
|> |CC: autoconf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; T.Clausen@computer.org
|> |Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] WG Review: Recharter of Ad-Hoc Network
|> |Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
|> |
|> |I would like to suggest: add explicitely that the practical
|addressing
|> |model should work at least with manual and static routes.  And that
|the
|> |practical addressing model should not be preconditioned by the use of
|> |OLSR nor DYMO in the ad-hoc network.
|>
|> I think the addressing model has little to do with the method how to
|assign
|> and configure the addresses. This is a next step. I wonder if any
|model
|> exclude what you are asking for. Worried for some reason???
|>
|I don't see why the charter should explicitly mention that the
|addressing model should work with manual and static routes. As Teco
|said, this would be part of the solution space, i.e. it could be part of
|a draft that describes an autoconf mechanism.
|
|> I would not suggest working with static routes in a mobile ad hoc
|network.
|>
|Well, as said, I don't think that's part of the discussion we lead here
|concerning the charter.
|> I agree on the last one, the model should apply to other MANET Routing
|> Protocols as well. OSPF-MANET is an important one, not forgetting
|others,
|> including multicast.
|>
|Yes, but I don't think it should be mentioned in the charter. The
|charter does not say anything that the addressing model should have any
|preconditions for a particular MANET routing protocol. Otherwise, it
|would need to list a large number of routing protocols (OLSR, OLSRv2,
|OSPF, AODV,....)
|>
|> |Also suggest: specifically mention which link-layers are being
|> |considered for ad-hoc networks.  I personally consider 802.11,
|802.15.4,
|> |wired Ethernet, USB and eventually 802.16.  If anybody else considers
|> |other link-layers please mention them.
|>
|> I consider other link layers, but I will not mention them. I do not
|know all
|> details or even a complete list. And if I would, it doesn't help. I
|think it
|> is sufficient and more useful to describe the MANET link
|characteristics.
|>
|
|I agree with Teco. MANETs can run on a number of different L2
|technologies with certain characteristics. These characteristics should
|be mentioned in the document to be written, but not in the charter. In
|my opinion, no specific L2 should be mentioned.
|
|Ulrich
|> Teco.
|>
|>
|> |
|> |Alex
|> |
|> |IESG Secretary a écrit :
|> |> A modified charter has been submitted for the Ad-Hoc Network
|> |> Autoconfiguration working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.
|The
|> |> IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter
|is
|> |> provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
|> |comments
|> |> to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Wednesday, March 11,
|2009.
|> |>
|> |> Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration (autoconf)
|> |> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> |> Last Modified: 2009-02-18
|> |>
|> |> Current Status: Active Working Group
|> |>
|> |> Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf
|> |>
|> |> Chair(s):
|> |> Ryuji Wakikawa [ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com]
|> |> Thomas Clausen [T.Clausen@computer.org]
|> |>
|> |> Internet Area Director(s):
|> |> Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]
|> |> Mark Townsley [townsley@cisco.com]
|> |>
|> |> Internet Area Advisor:
|> |> Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]
|> |>
|> |> Mailing Lists:
|> |> General Discussion: autoconf@ietf.org
|> |> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
|> |> Archive:
|> |> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
|> |>
|> |> Description of Working Group:
|> |>
|> |> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to
|RFC
|> |> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local
|> |addresses
|> |> that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may also need
|to
|> |> configure globally routable addresses, in order to communicate with
|> |> devices on the Internet. From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc
|> |> network presents itself as a L3 multi-hop network formed over a
|> |> collection of links.
|> |>
|> |> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing
|> |model
|> |> for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure their
|> |> addresses. It is required that such models do not cause problems
|for
|> |ad
|> |> hoc-unaware parts of the system, such as standard applications
|running
|> |> on an ad hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc
|> |> nodes. This group's effort may include the development of new
|protocol
|> |> mechanisms, should the existing IP autoconfiguration mechanisms be
|> |found
|> |> inadequate. However, the first task of the working group is to
|> |describe
|> |> one practical addressing model for ad hoc networks.
|> |>
|> |> Once this sole work item is completed, the group can be rechartered
|to
|> |> work on additional issues.
|> |>
|> |> Goals and Milestones:
|> |>
|> |> Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc
|> |networks
|> |> Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as
|Informational
|> |or
|> |> close WG
|> |>
|> |> _______________________________________________
|> |> Autoconf mailing list
|> |> Autoconf@ietf.org
|> |> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
|> |>
|> |
|> |_______________________________________________
|> |Autoconf mailing list
|> |Autoconf@ietf.org
|> |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> Autoconf mailing list
|> Autoconf@ietf.org
|> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
|>