Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil> Mon, 02 March 2009 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
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 10B2D3A6B23 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:21:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Otz8u81ptq1L for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F793A690F for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id n22GL22c011651; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:21:02 -0500
Received: (from sextant [132.250.92.22]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (SMSSMTP 4.1.16.48) with SMTP id M2009030211210203795 ; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:21:02 -0500
From: "Joe Macker" <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil>
To: "'Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)'" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, "'Stan Ratliff \(sratliff\)'" <sratliff@cisco.com>, "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "'Teco Boot'" <teco@inf-net.nl>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com><000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com><1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost><49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com><003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl><49A7E97A.2010503@gmail.com><006801c998fd$06c5bd60$14513820$@nl> <49A8272D.2060400@gmail.com> <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76407AD0C48@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D019FDEF1@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
In-Reply-To: <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D019FDEF1@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:20:59 -0500
Message-ID: <001001c99b52$dfb4a030$9f1de090$@macker@nrl.navy.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmZA4D7GvOj98TgRN+fRurNRpYVsAAA95NwAI+ZrRAAAyKNcA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:21:33 -0000

I would agree with these comments.

- Range seems artificially limiting. Wireless neighbor should suffice.
- Domain may extend into some wired links.

-Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:53 AM
> To: Stan Ratliff (sratliff); Alexandru Petrescu; Teco Boot
> Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
> 
> 
> Stan Ratliff
> > And I'll have to disagree with the "25m subnets". I regularly deal
> with
> > line-of-sight radio links that are in excess of 25km. We can't limit
> > ourselves to short-range technologies (e.g. Commercial 802.11,
> > Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc). I don't believe a distance should be
> explicitly
> > stated in the charter, rather, some verbiage that talks about "radio
> > neighbors in range" should be sufficient.
> 
> Agreed. There has to be a good reason to limit consideration of
> what bearers to use, and the default without such a good reason
> (which I am not aware of) is anything that works. Which means
> that actually it doesn't even have to be a radio bearer. If in
> an ad hoc network some links are wired, it may still be convenient
> to treat them as ad hoc links. (And that also is not just keeping
> options open for the sake of doing so.)
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf