Subject: Re: [Autoconf] closing the working group?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:01:44 +0200

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:18:45 +0200

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:
>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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
>

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:03 -0700

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
[email-masked]