Subject: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:48:47 +0200

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

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:59:46 +0200

I apologize for having fun manually configuring IPv4 MANET nodes,
that have access to the Internet through this wonderful NAT mechanism.
Great experience having broken connectivity during demonstrations, 
due to complete out of sync translation and forwarding tables. No
other work would better show a need for IPv6 MANETs and Autoconf.
And put IPv4 and NAPT to historic.

Meanwhile, I posted some more material on BRDP:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boot-brdp-framework
I didn't find cycles yet to update BRDP with new charter. It will come.

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?

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.

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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf