From:
owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au
[mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of James Goldsmith
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005
11:14 AM
To: dna@eng.monash.edu.au
Subject:
DNA group has been very inactive for quite some time.
There are only two messages in February - one is an IESG announcement, and
another is from the chair. There were no messages in January and only a
few messages in December all between Pekka and Jinkchok on the goals draft.
It appears that people have lost interest in this group, and not many seem to
care any more about the work pursued in this group. There are only 3 or 4
people have any interest left in DNA group’s continued activities.
This is very rare for an IETF group where it is easy to see even a smallest
working group attract a few hundred people in meetings (and /or on mailing
lists). The main reason is that DNA group hasn’t produced any thing
useful – goals and bcp drafts are just re-iteration of what already exist
in IPv4 and IPv6 mobility architecture documents.
Based on past proceedings and discussions, it appears that DNA group cannot
propose any solution without Layer 2 event modifications; something that is
outside the scope of IETF. I don’t see any interesting proposals
being discussed in DNA WG. On the other hand, there are over a dozen actively
pursued proposals in IEEE 802.21 – protocol independent handoff group.
For Layer 3 solutions, I have not seen any thing better than fast RA draft that
exists from pre-DNA group creation.
Yes, I know two or three active people in this group are trying to create some
sort of solution document, but it appears, based on rather poor traffic on the
mailing list, that mobility community has already given up.
What is the point of creating a document in which most people seem to have lost
the interest? In my opinion, the group should become dormant or be closed until
IEEE comes up with better event definitions for layer 2 for facilitating faster
hand-off.
James