Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Tue, 29 March 2011 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@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 063B528C138 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rv8N930LcHvG for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9616F3A693E for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so74595fxm.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=kL2loKwosy89UaWGAnNYWHTbcdgdQ3//PNyqXWrVEaQ=; b=H+43Fw/jWQsDgcRE8A/2M9j4UZwU4mWMUZeG0/NvgRUVgjIN0JGu6X0tOJG5aNQ7Th kTwji5SFqO96e3nWH6zUCet0YR5kC8HVywGe0o33nVZOv8b1t0wU38PGu6SOp6QU4+pO FKKQEFB5dfQRKgDVlv3z35M+iKpkJSsGQ7ZYw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=PdE6QBMwodiC1KDPU02ZGK6Yf/xMsLeDNBVT4HpEFoZvKGcR7eZXGzUJatZK9HFGlO BNqh9Ox0rlapYaiOCFn1JZl7w85bt/Ykho2Qn5dxmUFf2JUmRC6eNlUX2vL8D8LxKlXN AkFOdfGX7lwvGFVVVtXOZ4NXBOdR0zH4EYwS4=
Received: by 10.223.1.136 with SMTP id 8mr5591937faf.0.1301393884143; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.121.140 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <83749579.90712.1301381334987.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
References: <83749579.90712.1301381334987.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:17:44 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hdsLTnEVD76EwH3qIbRkY4ITW9Y
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=cuKUmz5+XW17BhF67=0gUgHM0bMxVM0Yvj=Vm@mail.gmail.com>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0f4b62d63b4049f9c605b
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:16:28 -0000

Hi Jari,

thanks for the help on RFC5889, it was tough, but at least we finally got
somewhere.
If my help is deemed useful for some document to come in this realm, let me
know. I'll be glad contribute.

A side note: if we are to close the working group, do you think it would be
useful for the record to publish
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-05?

After all, this document was extensively discussed, there was a rough
consensus in the
the WG about it, and its content may be useful to designers and implementers
down the line.
Any thoughts about this?

Regards,

Emmanuel



On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; wrote:

> 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
>