Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 D33D13A69BC for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 BcGYcttWIyEm for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB2E3A69B5 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o6N8eCSe008618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:13 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6N8eCOD016208; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:12 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o6N8eC7x009463; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4C49556C.9040402@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:12 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <1D0FFC66-A4C6-4E7E-A7C5-13156A9B37A3@thomasclausen.org> <4C494C29.5020004@gmail.com> <201007231005.48365.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <201007231005.48365.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org, "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>, Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
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: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:40:11 -0000

Le 23/07/2010 10:05, Henning Rogge a écrit :
> On Fri July 23 2010 10:00:41 Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Could we make an AUTOCONF non-MANET case where the link local
>> addresses are not visible across different wireless links.
>>
>> Otherwise, could we be stating in the Charter that AUTOCONF deals
>> _only_ with MANET cases where link local addresses are visible in
>> all radio ranges, links undefined, no WiFi ESSID nor similar.
>> Which by your definition is 'most MANET cases'.  You mentioned it
>> several times - it deserves being in the Charter.
>>
>> Both ways would help me a lot: in the first I stay in the group,
>> present at meeting.  In the second I go away.
>
> Quote from the charter of the autoconf WG:
>
> 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.
>
> "ad hoc networks" is the ANET part of MANET...

To me "specs for ad-hoc networks" is a contradiction in itself.

One would genuinely use the "ad-hoc" term after fact - I couldn't say
"I will build an ad-hoc network" but rather
"I have built an ad-hoc network".

A few famous ad-hoc happenings were actually planned.

And yes - you will quote me wikipedia about what A is in ANET is in MANET.

And yes - I will quote you wikipedia saying how "vehicular ad-hoc
networks" is about vehicles in constant close range, and how MANET is
probably more University Research and VANET is probably more promissing.

For some reason, I like that WiFi don't call themselves "ad-hoc" yet 
it's in widespread use.

Alex

>
> Henning Rogge
>