Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

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
>