Subject: [Autoconf] Lining up Autoconf documents

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:12:06 +0100

Hi,

In some private / public discussions, we struggled with terms related to
Autoconf.

I think all Autoconf terms shall be defined in autoconf-statement. Some
terms specific to MANET only may be defined in autoconf-manetarch.

I prefer a clear definition on Border Router. Some suggest there is a
difference in Border Router and Internet Gateway. I understand the
difference very well, but lacking a defined term for Internet Gateway I use
Border Router (BR). I suggest lining up both Autoconf WG drafts, as they are
using the same term for both. And verify with the charter, this text use
Internet Gateway and not Border Router.

On addresses, the Autoconf charter defines very well what is needed:

- unique local addresses

- globally routable unique addresses

The first is called MANET Local Address (MLA) in autoconf-statement, I will
use this term in a next version of my personal I-D.

For the second one, I introduced MGA, MANET Generated Address. I could
update this into MANET Global Address, keeping the MGA abbreviation and
using wording in line with MLA. Any other term is OK for me, as long as it
is consistently used and well defined.

I think Carlos Bernardos (et alia) has published good documents on Autoconf.
Lining up terms with these documents doesn't harm. And we should discuss
accepting these documents as WG docs in Vancouver, for being published as
informational RFC. I suggest chairs prepare a proposal for both
draft-bernardos-autoconf-evaluation-considerations and
draft-bernardos-autoconf-solution-space. AD approval could be required, I
suggest a break-of-silence procedure here.

Cheers, Teco

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:55:23 +0100

Teco, All,

Thanks for your email and your comments. I agree with Teco that it is  
important to try to ensure coherence between the different documents,  
in particular those which are wg documents. I appreciate  
*everybody's* review -- on this and on other matters in these I-Ds --  
and feedback on the M-L.

Regarding the suggestion of Teco to accept new I-Ds as wg documents  
-- and without passing any judgement on the merits of these documents  
in this email -- I want to emphasize two procedural matters:

	o a good start would be to discuss these I-Ds on the 'list, to  
understand how
	   the wg feels about those. An I-D becoming a wg document  
implicitly means that
	   the wg accepts responsibility for progressing these documents;

	o the AUTOCONF wg has an existing set of work-items to complete, and  
has let the
	   milestones slip multiple times.

	   I believe that if the wg was to accept new work-items, then I as  
chair would want to
	   be convinced that we were "on track" with our  existing  
milestones and that the
	   working group as a whole would be able to assume the  
responsibility for carrying
	   those "new" items to completion -- respecting these milestones.

As I said, I am not pronouncing myself on the merits of the documents  
in question, but rather am encouraging that we all follow Teco's  
example and discuss those on the M-L -- AND that we make an effort on  
the already existing milestones to carry those forward.

Cheers,

Thomas

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Teco Boot wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> In some private / public discussions, we struggled with terms  
> related to Autoconf.
>
> I think all Autoconf terms shall be defined in autoconf-statement.  
> Some terms specific to MANET only may be defined in autoconf- 
> manetarch.
>
>
>
> I prefer a clear definition on Border Router. Some suggest there is  
> a difference in Border Router and Internet Gateway. I understand  
> the difference very well, but lacking a defined term for Internet  
> Gateway I use Border Router (BR). I suggest lining up both Autoconf  
> WG drafts, as they are using the same term for both. And verify  
> with the charter, this text use Internet Gateway and not Border  
> Router.
>
>
>
> The first is called MANET Local Address (MLA) in autoconf- 
> statement, I will use this term in a next version of my personal I-D.
>
> For the second one, I introduced MGA, MANET Generated Address. I  
> could update this into MANET Global Address, keeping the MGA  
> abbreviation and using wording in line with MLA. Any other term is  
> OK for me, as long as it is consistently used and well defined.
>
>
>
> I think Carlos Bernardos (et alia) has published good documents on  
> Autoconf. Lining up terms with these documents doesn't harm. And we  
> should discuss accepting these documents as WG docs in Vancouver,  
> for being published as informational RFC. I suggest chairs prepare  
> a proposal for both draft-bernardos-autoconf-evaluation- 
> considerations and draft-bernardos-autoconf-solution-space. AD  
> approval could be required, I suggest a break-of-silence procedure  
> here.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Teco
>
>
>

-- 
Thomas Clausen
[email-masked]
htp://www.thomasclausen.org/
htp://www.thomasclausen.org/hipercom/