[Autoconf] Summary of re-chartering discussions.

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments. We have roughly following opinions. 

- Centralized and/or De-centerized 
- Existing protocols (DHCP and/or ND) vs. new autoconf protocols
- SIngle or Multiple AUTOCONF protocol(s)
- Security issue
- Informational link characteristics document

Chairs will prepare for the detailed summary by the Friday meeting in Maastricht.
We may ask some folks to present their opinion based on the comments we received for the new charter proposal.

Here is my general comment (more like impression) as one of co-chair.
It's important to note that several folks agree on the Jari's proposed milestone. 

>1. Design space survey (Informational)
>2. The simple solution (such as DHCP) (PS)
>3. Limitations of the simple solution (Informational)
>4. Recharter for work on the more general solution

I do agree on the importance of non-centerized approach for MANET and knew
many past works exist for AUTOCONF (I had one proposal, too).  
However, as a co-chair, we see high hurdles to get the new protocol(s) out.

First, we have to define requirements of such new autoconf protocol(s), 
for example:  router's address, Global prefix, centralized-,
non-centerized scenarios, single and/or multiple centralized servers,
security...  
Considering fact that people aim at so many different manet scenarios, 
how can we agree on those requirements?

Second, how can we select (a) past proposed autoconf protocol(s) or
inventing a new protocol..
We don't know yet whether there is "a protocol" supporting all the requirements of 
MANET scenarios. Maybe there is, but we need some investigation.

I am afraid to say that It will require a few more years to define only 
requirements, then protocol standardization for !? years.

Don't you think we need some exercise with the simple solution first
before tackling with these huge issues?  
At the coming AUTOCONF charter, the simplest solution may be defined
as just an experimental RFC. Then, we'll have the document of
"limitations of the simple solution (informational)". 
After having these documents, it's not too late to produce "an
AUTOCONF protocol (PS)".

Let's say if the Jari's proposed milestone takes 1- 1.5 years, we will
have better strategy for "An AUTOCONF protocol (PS)" in those years.
Some of folks may feel waste of time for the Jari's proposed charter,
but i believe this is worth to pay for AUTOCONF activity.

Anyway, let's continue rechartering discussion in Maastricht.

thanks,
ryuji