Hi all,
Reminder, we currently solicit your opinion.
The deadline is Thursday. We only have few reply from WG.
thanks
ryuji
On 2009/10/21, at 16:49, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
All,
It appeared to the chairs that the comments raised at the Stockholm
IETF, as well as on the list subsequently, concerning the document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
had been addressed fully by the editors, and to the WGs satisfaction -
at least, there were no issue raised to the latter/latest version
hereof. The chairs therefore found it a good idea to move the document
forward as a WG document, and progress this document as such. We
therefore approved for publication:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
We (the chairs) still believe that this is the proper approach in
order to make progress for the WG.
Do note that the WG is 7 months past the milestone for initial
document submission, and 1 month past the milestone for having
progressed the document to the IESG and/or closed up shop! And, there
has been no discussions (in meetings or on this list) on alternative
candidate documents for the work item which [autoconf] is chartered to
accomplish.
To put it bluntly, this WG is far far behind schedule and this
document seemed, and still seems, by virtue of having been widely
discussed and agreed upon, as the best shot at making progress for
this WG.
That said, we (and, this we is also the chairs) will take this
opportunity to ask the WGs opinion on how to progress. If you have any
opinion, please let it be known to the WG (via this mailing list)
before 29/10/09 (i.e. Thursday next week) at noon CET. Please be
specific and constructive, i.e., pick one of:
o if you think that the WG should proceed with
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
as a baseline, say so!
o if you think there're cardinal (but fixable) issues missing or wrong
with
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model, then let the WG know
what these
issues are, and propose a solution before the deadline.
The Editors
will certainly do their best to address the issues.
o if you think that draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model is beyond hope,
let the WG know explicitly how you suggest that we
progress at this point --
considering the current timeline!!
Cheers,
Ryuji & Thomas
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
