Subject: ZEROCONF WG status

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:45:16 +0200 (CEST)

The following items remain for the ZEROCONF WG

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for Automatic Configuration of IP Hosts 

No work has been done on this document for some time.  Key areas never
achieved consensus (even rough) in the WG.  There is no longer energy to
continue work on it.  I think we need to put it to sleep and the
Internet Area Directors concur.  Unless someone can leap to the defense
of this work, we will remove it from the WG charter.

I thank Myron Hattig and Aidan Williams for their editorial and textual
contributions in any case.  It is a shame we could not determine the
contour and extent of zeroconf networking through a definition of its
requirements. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local addresses  

We currently have the following items open for discussion till next
Friday 18, Apr 2003.  Please send support/reject/alternatives for

[LL12] Does shorter timeouts for specific link technology lead to 
       problems?
[LL20] Alternate text for 'Does shorter timeouts for specific link
       technology lead to problems?'
[LL22] Delete inappropriate advice to network operators
[LL28] Applicability of Document

The following items are still open and require text before we can
discuss them:

[LL4]  No examples of applications
[LL5]  Higher layer protocol considerations is not sufficiently
       draconian

I owe Alex Zinin and the WG list a new issue on a Routing Considerations
section I volunteered to write.  Alex has given me lots of feedback.

We have had two rough consensus calls [LL23] and [LL29] vs.
alternatives.  Given the contentiousness of the debate on these points
over many months (years, actually) - it is not surprising we did not
come to a unanimous conclusion.

The plan:

 - close remaining items (by end of April)
 - issue a new draft (early May at the latest, though an interim
   draft before then incorporating changes would be welcome!)
 - additional editing pass (LL26) and clean up by mid May
 - deliver to IESG for their review (probably a new IETF last call
   will be required, etc) by mid May

Thanks for your continuing efforts to complete work on this document.

Erik