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 >
- [Autoconf] closing the working group? Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Alexandru Petrescu