Re: FW: DNA Group Activities
Hi Vivek and 802.21,
Things have indeed been quiet on the DNA list.
It's not dead though, just playing possum.
The DNA design team list has been working at about
15 e-mails/day on evaluating solutions in the last
month or so, and was doing about the same before
christmas.
Unfortunately, the mailing list doesn't seem
to have the same level of activity.
This is slightly troubling (but the Chairs
have already talked to the Area Directors about
it).
If you'd like to comment on the original e-mail.
Please feel free to do so, either here or
in the other list.
Greg Daley
DNA WG Co-Chair
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gupta, Vivek G" <vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM>
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2005 6:18 am
Subject: FW: DNA Group Activities
> fyi
>
> -Vivek
>
>
>
> Vivek Gupta
>
> Technical Editor, IEEE 802.21
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
> groupcreation.
>
> 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
> layer2 for facilitating faster hand-off.
>
> James
>
>