Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 30 March 2011 12:58 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 E8F343A67E9 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Yg1eSC5piafc for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87673A67CC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1013211bwz.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.24.4 with SMTP id t4mr1079553bkb.109.1301489990770; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-14b8.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-14b8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v21sm47503bkt.23.2011.03.30.05.59.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:59:46 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1FABB0A6-AA51-4099-9980-9229CA27979C@inf-net.nl>
References: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:58:14 -0000

I apologize for having fun manually configuring IPv4 MANET nodes,
that have access to the Internet through this wonderful NAT mechanism.
Great experience having broken connectivity during demonstrations, 
due to complete out of sync translation and forwarding tables. No
other work would better show a need for IPv6 MANETs and Autoconf.
And put IPv4 and NAPT to historic.

Meanwhile, I posted some more material on BRDP:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boot-brdp-framework
I didn't find cycles yet to update BRDP with new charter. It will come.

I agree that Autoconf activity is extremely low. But seen the 
fact having a new charter took 6 months, why having a 3 month slot for
making a judgement on closing the WG?

Maybe we could park the WG, and evaluate liveliness by 6 months or so.
This means no meetings, but having a chance to do some work.

Teco.


Op 29 mrt 2011, om 08:48 heeft Jari Arkko het volgende geschreven:

> 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