Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Alexandru Petrescu <> Sun, 03 April 2011 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051933A680F for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZqDjaPvFYsr for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2063A680A for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B64C940303 for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:18:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:18:45 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:17:14 -0000


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.


> 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 mailing list