Subject: [Autoconf] meeting at the coming IETF75

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:34:57 -0700

Hi all,

We have requested one meeting slot (2hrs) at the IETF75 for the  
addressing model discussion.

The DT is currently working hard to produce a document, but it needs a  
few more days to resolve all the left issues.
Chairs understand the delay of the first strawman document submission.

Sorry for your patient, but we will be able to discuss the addressing  
model as soon as DT submits a document.
We will try to accelerate the DT work, too.

At IETF75, we plan to discuss only the DT work in the AUTOCONF slot.
If you have any topic which has to be discussed at IETF75, please  
contact to chairs (Thomas and me).

thanks,
Thomas & ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:57:38 +0200

Dear Chair(s),

I would like to understand the following:

-on how many documents is the DT working?
-who are the authors of the DT document?
-what is the title of the document?  How does it fit the Charter?

And I hope a _practical_ addressing model is still favoured.

Alex

> 
> thanks, Thomas & ryuji
> 
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
>  [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:13:51 +0200

Dear Alex,

Fair enough question. Ryuji sent an email to this list mid-March with  
those details:

	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg01557.html

I am not entirely sure that the DT has decided finally upon a title  
for the document, though, but I see that as rather minor. And, I too  
hope that a _practical_ addressing model is being favored by this DT.

Sincerely,

Thomas

On May 23, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> At IETF75, we plan to discuss only the DT work in the AUTOCONF  
>> slot. If you have any topic which has to be discussed at IETF75,  
>> please
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:04:37 +0200

Hi Thomas,

One additional question and a comment:

- The DT composition Ryuji announced on the ML does not match entirely
what was presented in the San Francisco meeting. I've tried to find the
slides, but these are not available on the IETF proceedings side.

- I've also tried to find the minutes, are they available somewhere?

Thanks,

Carlos

-- 
   Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
   GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                IEEE Network Special Issue on
        Advances in Vehicular Communications Networks
 http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0110.htm 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 03:25:29 -0700

Hi Carlos,

> slides, but these are not available on the IETF proceedings side.

Could you clarify the unmatched parts?

> - I've also tried to find the minutes, are they available somewhere?

We've submitted the minutes to IETF late. I attach the posted minutes.
The minutes will be available online shortly.

regards,
ryuji

>>>> The DT is currently working hard to produce a document, but it  
>>>> needs
>>>> a

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:29:39 +0200

> Could you clarify the unmatched parts?

The unmatched parts are clearer when checking the DT archive - could you 
ack?

> The minutes will be available online shortly.

Thanks for this,

Alex

> 
> regards,
> ryuji
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 03:31:59 -0700

Hi Alex,

On 2009/05/26, at 3:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> The unmatched parts are clearer when checking the DT archive - could  
> you ack?

please detail or list the unmatched parts :-)
AFAIK, they basically discuss what they have presented at the last  
meeting.

ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:46:17 +0200

Ryuji, I have no intention to disturb any personal feelings, and this is 
not offence to any one's name, excuses in advance.

minutes :
> 	A design team has been established to propose kick-start
> 	this work, with the following participants:
> 	
> 		o	Teco Boot, Emmanuel Baccelli, Charles Perkins,
> 			Mark Townsley, Thomas Narten, Ulrich Herberg.

This doesn't match the initial announcement on this mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg01557.html
which basically had 5 members.

A couple of aspects of this change:

-it's impractical to have more than 5 co-authors on an I-D authorship,
  xml format makes it for max 5.  Of course, a contributors section could
  be used, and designate a couple of editors.
-some drafts circulated on the DT archives have 3 co-authors - why not
  all 5, or 6?  Are some members more important than others?

About the document title: is it 'strawman' (announced by the DT 
forming)?  'framework'  circulated in the DT archives)?  'practical 
model'?  (Charter says).  They don't seem to appear all at the same place.

I don't want to sound alarmist, but I'm wondering whether the DT is not 
risking spending its time with work for which it is not Chartered to do? 
  Just noting.

Alex

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 04:06:33 -0700

Hi Alex,

On 2009/05/26, at 3:46, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Ryuji, I have no intention to disturb any personal feelings, and  
> this is not offence to any one's name, excuses in advance.

Your inputs are always welcome:-)

> which basically had 5 members.

Before forming the DT, Ulrich has published several documents for this  
work with Thomas.
We invited Ulrich in the DT at the previous IETF, because
we believed that a chair (ThomasC) should not join in the DT in  
general sense.

You saw (listened) Ulrich's presentation at the previous IETF.

> be used, and designate a couple of editors.

All the DT members contribute to the document,
but I believe some of DT will act as an editor.

> all 5, or 6?

These documents circulated on the DT ML is not the final one.
The final document will be the one from the DT (all members)

>  Are some members more important than others?

Of course, not

> model'?  (Charter says).  They don't seem to appear all at the same  

"strawman" is not the title... It's just used by us to point out "not- 
yet-existing document"
anyway, the title is negotiable, but the contents are more important.

> I don't want to sound alarmist, but I'm wondering whether the DT is  
> not risking spending its time with work for which it is not  
> Chartered to do?  Just noting.

DT is finalizing the document and hopefully publish the initial  
document shortly.
We will see what they are specifying in the spec.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:01:57 +0200

Hi Alex,

since Ryuji already replied to your email, just a little technical
comment: xml2rfc (nor the DTD) does not limit the number of authors.
(just verified with the newest version).

As Ryuji said, the documents that circulate have never been officially
posted, they are just working material. So the number of authors, the
title and even the whole content may still change until a document
from the DT is released.

Ulrich

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Ryuji, I have no intention to disturb any personal feelings, and this is not
> offence to any one's name, excuses in advance.
>
> minutes :
>>
> About the document title: is it 'strawman' (announced by the DT forming)?
>  'framework'  circulated in the DT archives)?  'practical model'?  (Charter
> says).  They don't seem to appear all at the same place.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:18:36 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

Thanks for the reply.

>  (just verified with the newest version).

Ok, things may have changed with the newest xml2rfc.  A few weeks ago
that was the case that xml2rfc limited authors to 5.

> As Ryuji said, the documents that circulate have never been 
> officially posted, they are just working material. So the number of 
> authors, the title and even the whole content may still change until 
> a document from the DT is released.

I am wondering what is the approach taken to write the draft:

-have you agreed on a ToC and then distributed the sections for each
  author to write independently?
-or is it a basic text laid down by some authors and then the other
  authors contribute in the form of comments to the initial text?

I believe this latter approach may have been preferred.  If yes - how
was that basic text selected - out of which SF presentation?

Alex

>>> A design team has been established to propose kick-start this 
>>> work, with the following participants:
>>> 
>>> o       Teco Boot, Emmanuel Baccelli, Charles Perkins, Mark 
>>> Townsley, Thomas Narten, Ulrich Herberg.
>> -it's impractical to have more than 5 co-authors on an I-D 
>> authorship, xml format makes it for max 5.  Of course, a 
>> contributors section could be used, and designate a couple of 
>> editors. -some drafts circulated on the DT archives have 3 
>> co-authors - why not all 5, or 6?  Are some members more important 
>> than others?
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing 
>> list [email-masked]