Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Sun, 03 April 2011 14:00 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 E1A873A6805 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6]
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 B7mQs856Izam for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B843A67F5 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBEA940256; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:01:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4D987DC8.2030504@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:01:44 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110403-0, 03/04/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:00:14 -0000

I do have some interest in DHCPv6-based solution for MANET-like settings
for vehicular networks.

This includes:

- implementation work with DHCPv6.
- ways to deliver the default route with DHCPv6.
- ways for DHCPv6 Relay to update its rt table upon delivering a prefix
   with DHCPv6-PD.
- ways for DHCPv6 to interact DHCPv6 with Mobile IPv6 and NEMOv6
   extensions; and interactions with RA-based routing (draft-petrescu-
   autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt).

However,
- The default route with DHCPv6 appears to be dealt with by a WG item
   in MIF WG (draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-01) and elsewhere
   (draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00.txt).
- some interest in vehicular networks was expressed recently in 6man
   WG, but not necessarily DHCPv6 (but the VIN and address mapping).
- there are still huge differences between what vehicular industry
   wants and what IETF does.

In a project where I work, I explicitely mentioned AUTOCONF as potential
place to work DHCPv6-based auto-configuration for vehicular networks,
because vehicular networks and MANET may share a common structure;
however, that is a live document and I can remove AUTOCONF easily.

I have difficulty working together with people in AUTOCONF.  I do get
along excellent with some AUTOCONF people in matters other than work,
but working together has obstacles:

- a deep mismatch in understanding about the behaviour of link layers
   with respect to IP Routing.
- mismatch in addressing architecture, IP subnet.
- mismatch in individual ambition of personal solution proposals.

My personal current state of thoughts about AUTOCONF is the following IMHO:
- in the current configuration (same set of members, same Chairmanship)
   we can't achieve results.
- shutting down the AUTOCONF WG (dont meet, email list head towards
   closure, state "closed" in the Charter) is a reasonable thing to do.
- shutting down is not a negative thing, but maybe create place for new
   beginnings.
- shutting down, deleting, has proven an effective tool in other
   community-driven places, IETF and non-IETF.
- "parking" a WG a la MANET WG item is not an effective tool.

Yours,

Alex



Le 29/03/2011 08:48, Jari Arkko a écrit :
> I have looked at the discussions on the list (or lack thereof). I
> also cannot see too many internet drafts on the topics belonging to
> the group's charter. I am very happy with the RFC that has been
> produced by the working group, but we also seem to have some actual
> protocol work happening elsewhere (e.g., in the context of the ROLL
> WG).
>
> I discussed this matter with the chairs and my co-AD, and we are
> wondering if it would be time to close the working group. I do know
> that there is at least one implementation team that is still in the
> process of describing their DHCP-based solution, maybe there are
> similar efforts on the distributed solution space. My proposal is
> that we close the working group and I'be VERY happy to AD sponsor
> all such solutions to Experimental RFCs as soon as we have those
> proposals in some reasonable shape.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>