Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Thu, 26 February 2009 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 C2B543A6818 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:58:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 bRVgddgSrSiC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB4E28C2E6 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:58:12 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=sAOy6fKMr4uPNCSGAHgkx34qNEtu7m2hHI0etuiweTssI3/fBVpbJRvbt1kukenU; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.51.129.145] (helo=[10.166.254.136]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1LcmNN-0003fw-Eu for autoconf@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:58:34 -0500
Message-ID: <49A6F464.4060402@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:58:28 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: autoconf@ietf.org
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52b78610b3904e44accd98cb8c73fd78ea350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.51.129.145
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:58:14 -0000

Hello folks,

I have issues with the proposed charter.


Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC 
> 2501) need to configure their network interface(s) with local 
> addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. 

Dymo and AODV allow a node with a global address to work in an ad-hoc 
network
without configuing any local address.  I think this is an important 
feature to maintain.

Of course, such nodes wouldo not _necessarily_ have to initiate address
configuration protocols as will be specified within [autoconf].

> The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to describe the addressing 
> model for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure 
> their addresses.

I would say the main purpose of [autoconf] is to _specify_ how nodes
in such networks configure their addresses.  Describing the addressing
model is simply a crucial step along the way, but it ought to be very
simple to do once we get past these initial conceptual roadblocks.


>
> Apr 2009 Submit initial draft on address configuration in ad hoc networks
> Sep 2009 Submit address configuration draft to IESG as Informational 
> or close WG

This doesn't have any deliverable for the autoconfiguration protocol.  
As such,
it seems to me to be overly pessimistic about the ability of the group 
to make
progress.  Perhaps it is felt that pessimism is justified by various 
cyclical
processes that have consumed the energy of the group over the last three
years.  I'd recommend a more constructive outlook, which in itself would
motivate stronger contributions from the members of the team.

Otherwise, the working group devolves into some exercise in (perhaps
useful) abstraction.  Imagine what would have happened if [ipv6] were
initially chartered only to develop an addressing model!

Regards,
Charlie P.