Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Sun, 03 April 2011 14:17 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 051933A680F for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.354, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6]
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 AZqDjaPvFYsr for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2063A680A for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B64C940303 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:18:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4D9881C5.2040009@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:18:45 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: autoconf@ietf.org
References: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net> <1FABB0A6-AA51-4099-9980-9229CA27979C@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <1FABB0A6-AA51-4099-9980-9229CA27979C@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110403-0, 03/04/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:17:14 -0000

Teco,

I read your comment carefully, I reply below on two particular points.

Le 30/03/2011 14:59, Teco Boot a écrit :
[...]
> 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?

Because in other WGs when a Charter comes up a plethora of solution
drafts show up soon after (less than 1 month), if not before.

> 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.

I think this is what we've done for several years: keep it up and
evaluate liveliness from time to time.  It got re-Chartered already.

I think we already do have some chance to do similar work in other
settings.  For me, it now may be MIF, 6man and others.

I never felt the existence of AUTOCONF WG to be a strong support for the
work I do about DHCPv6.

Worse: when I mention AUTOCONF WG to non-IETF experts they check the
IETF pages (WG status, plans, emails) and see the status as almost
inactive, hence I have difficulty advertizing it.

There may exist other reasons for keeping AUTOCONF WG up.  You tell me.

Alex

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>