Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 F1B0E3A6957 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 0PkHItP0tyrx for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E2B3A691D for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6MBaq70011711 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:36:52 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6MBaqYs012707; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:36:52 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6MBaox2009883; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:36:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4C482D52.4010306@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:36:50 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <4C378C29.2040302@oracle.com> <323812CA-4C8B-4469-AA6C-0D65191F2735@sensinode.com> <CA71B05E-5CE0-45ED-8292-398136640025@gmail.com> <AANLkTikS7QyebdP6jOXDIM-cm2vE87VgSWFAq6d6PL0v@mail.gmail.com> <4C46EFC8.6020501@piuha.net> <4C48144D.4040105@gmail.com> <E88A7B1C-7E79-4F0D-9E70-098D649953AB@thomasclausen.org> <4C4815B4.6020907@gmail.com> <2310E7B5-FB7C-4EAE-9640-E2A6957CCF7D@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <2310E7B5-FB7C-4EAE-9640-E2A6957CCF7D@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:36:38 -0000

Le 22/07/2010 11:58, Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:56 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Le 22/07/2010 11:52, Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:50 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 21/07/2010 15:02, Jari Arkko a écrit :
>>>>> I too would be fine with a title change to "Router Addressing
>>>>> Model in Ad Hoc Networks" or even "*A* Router Addressing
>>>>> Model in Ad Hoc Networks"...
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.  There are Ad-Hoc Networks which don't use that
>>>> Addressing Model.
>>>>
>>>> The way link-local addresses are formed is specifically to
>>>> work in ad-hoc unplanned networks... or, this draft
>>>> discourages them.
>>>
>>> Alex, I think you still don't capture that we're talking about
>>> multi-hop networks here.
>>
>> Thomas - by multi-hop networks I mean: LFN--MR--MR--LFN is a
>> multi-hop network using link-local addresses exclusively between
>> MRs.
>>
>
> I have no idea what LFN-MR-MR-LFN is.

Are you interested to learn?  The LFN--MR--MR--LFN topology and its
multi-hop network nature is not strange to a co-Chair.

There is a draft and I would like to present it during the next WG
meeting - that could show that I do capture that we talk about multi-hop
networks.

> This working group is concerned with configuring  MANET routers,
> specifically the interfaces hereof over which MANET routing
> protocols operate.

Hmmm... this is something you would wish, right?  Because the current
Charter proposal stays "...independent on operation of any specific
MANET routing protocol"...

I currently agree with that way of using the word MANET in the current
Charter proposal; but I'd suggest to remove "MANET" entirely from
the Charter proposal, use instead agreed words.

Alex