From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Sun Apr 3 07:00:13 2011 Return-Path: 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 E1A873A6805 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.370, 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 B7mQs856Izam for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B843A67F5 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBEA940256; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:01:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4D987DC8.2030504@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:01:44 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu 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: Jari Arkko References: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net> 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 Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:00:14 -0000 I do have some interest in DHCPv6-based solution for MANET-like settings for vehicular networks. This includes: - implementation work with DHCPv6. - ways to deliver the default route with DHCPv6. - ways for DHCPv6 Relay to update its rt table upon delivering a prefix with DHCPv6-PD. - ways for DHCPv6 to interact DHCPv6 with Mobile IPv6 and NEMOv6 extensions; and interactions with RA-based routing (draft-petrescu- autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt). However, - The default route with DHCPv6 appears to be dealt with by a WG item in MIF WG (draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-01) and elsewhere (draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00.txt). - some interest in vehicular networks was expressed recently in 6man WG, but not necessarily DHCPv6 (but the VIN and address mapping). - there are still huge differences between what vehicular industry wants and what IETF does. In a project where I work, I explicitely mentioned AUTOCONF as potential place to work DHCPv6-based auto-configuration for vehicular networks, because vehicular networks and MANET may share a common structure; however, that is a live document and I can remove AUTOCONF easily. I have difficulty working together with people in AUTOCONF. I do get along excellent with some AUTOCONF people in matters other than work, but working together has obstacles: - a deep mismatch in understanding about the behaviour of link layers with respect to IP Routing. - mismatch in addressing architecture, IP subnet. - mismatch in individual ambition of personal solution proposals. My personal current state of thoughts about AUTOCONF is the following IMHO: - in the current configuration (same set of members, same Chairmanship) we can't achieve results. - shutting down the AUTOCONF WG (dont meet, email list head towards closure, state "closed" in the Charter) is a reasonable thing to do. - shutting down is not a negative thing, but maybe create place for new beginnings. - shutting down, deleting, has proven an effective tool in other community-driven places, IETF and non-IETF. - "parking" a WG a la MANET WG item is not an effective tool. Yours, Alex Le 29/03/2011 08:48, Jari Arkko a écrit : > 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 > From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Sun Apr 3 07:17:14 2011 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 > From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com Fri Apr 15 09:10:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: autoconf@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: autoconf@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E287E06D7 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8dScsSYfDvo for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81687E084F for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p3FGAFK0002414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p3FGABCC023377 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:10:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p3FGA4RN023158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:10:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:04 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "autoconf@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:03 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Autoconf] closing the working group? Thread-Index: AcvyChP4y7wN5VUiRO6RL4tbJMm49QJfJo4g Message-ID: References: <4D9180CF.1080008@piuha.net><1FABB0A6-AA51-4099-9980-9229CA27979C@inf-net.nl> <4D9881C5.2040009@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D9881C5.2040009@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.500.1024-18074.007 x-tm-as-result: No--49.078900-0.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group? X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:10:23 -0000 I'm wondering what is going to happen with this working group also. We have a number of published documents that are somehow related (RFC5214, RFC5320, RFC5558, RFC5720, RFC6139, RFC6179, etc.) and other publications that are waiting to be lined up with the right wg (seal(bis), vet(bis), aero, etc.). Some of these works might also be consistent with what others like Teco are trying to achieve. Do we consider our work here as done? Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com=