Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Alexandru Petrescu <> Sun, 03 April 2011 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A873A6805 for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.019
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B7mQs856Izam for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B843A67F5 for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBEA940256; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:01:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:01:44 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?
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: 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-

- 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
- 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
- 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.



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