Re: [Autoconf] Lining up Autoconf documents

[Thomas Clausen <[e-mail]>]

Teco, All,

Thanks for your email and your comments. I agree with Teco that it is  
important to try to ensure coherence between the different documents,  
in particular those which are wg documents. I appreciate  
*everybody's* review -- on this and on other matters in these I-Ds --  
and feedback on the M-L.

Regarding the suggestion of Teco to accept new I-Ds as wg documents  
-- and without passing any judgement on the merits of these documents  
in this email -- I want to emphasize two procedural matters:

	o a good start would be to discuss these I-Ds on the 'list, to  
understand how
	   the wg feels about those. An I-D becoming a wg document  
implicitly means that
	   the wg accepts responsibility for progressing these documents;

	o the AUTOCONF wg has an existing set of work-items to complete, and  
has let the
	   milestones slip multiple times.

	   I believe that if the wg was to accept new work-items, then I as  
chair would want to
	   be convinced that we were "on track" with our  existing  
milestones and that the
	   working group as a whole would be able to assume the  
responsibility for carrying
	   those "new" items to completion -- respecting these milestones.

As I said, I am not pronouncing myself on the merits of the documents  
in question, but rather am encouraging that we all follow Teco's  
example and discuss those on the M-L -- AND that we make an effort on  
the already existing milestones to carry those forward.

Cheers,

Thomas


On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Teco Boot wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> In some private / public discussions, we struggled with terms  
> related to Autoconf.
>
> I think all Autoconf terms shall be defined in autoconf-statement.  
> Some terms specific to MANET only may be defined in autoconf- 
> manetarch.
>
>
>
> I prefer a clear definition on Border Router. Some suggest there is  
> a difference in Border Router and Internet Gateway. I understand  
> the difference very well, but lacking a defined term for Internet  
> Gateway I use Border Router (BR). I suggest lining up both Autoconf  
> WG drafts, as they are using the same term for both. And verify  
> with the charter, this text use Internet Gateway and not Border  
> Router.
>
>
>
> On addresses, the Autoconf charter defines very well what is needed:
>
> - unique local addresses
>
> - globally routable unique addresses
>
> The first is called MANET Local Address (MLA) in autoconf- 
> statement, I will use this term in a next version of my personal I-D.
>
> For the second one, I introduced MGA, MANET Generated Address. I  
> could update this into MANET Global Address, keeping the MGA  
> abbreviation and using wording in line with MLA. Any other term is  
> OK for me, as long as it is consistently used and well defined.
>
>
>
> I think Carlos Bernardos (et alia) has published good documents on  
> Autoconf. Lining up terms with these documents doesn't harm. And we  
> should discuss accepting these documents as WG docs in Vancouver,  
> for being published as informational RFC. I suggest chairs prepare  
> a proposal for both draft-bernardos-autoconf-evaluation- 
> considerations and draft-bernardos-autoconf-solution-space. AD  
> approval could be required, I suggest a break-of-silence procedure  
> here.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Teco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

-- 
Thomas Clausen
[e-mail]
htp://www.thomasclausen.org/
htp://www.thomasclausen.org/hipercom/




_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf