Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort

On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Daniel Park wrote:
> 
>> Yes, since I was also a member of that TF within DLNA. But, I do not quite sure now whether we can share that whitepaper in ietf due to DLNA membership policy.
> 
> Reading up on www.dlna.org it seems the way this organisation operates and envisions future development is incompatible with how the IETF operates?

While it is certainly easier to work with organizations that have more open policies, the IETF can and has managed to work with those that do not. For example, the BBF has liaised Working Texts to the v6ops and other WGs which are typically private to BBF members only, the IEEE has setup arrangements where IETF WG chairs can give access to password-protected document repositories to those that request it, etc. Also, the practical need for these kinds of arrangements depends on the overlap or lack thereof between IETF WG participants that do and do not have access via membership anyway. 

So, don't consider this a blocking function. We'll work it out, either ourselves or via the IAB (who officially manages SDO liaison relationships) if need be.

- Mark

> 
> <http://www.dlna.org/about_us/faqs/>
> 
> "The DLNA Guidelines are available to DLNA Member companies for free and to purchase for non-DLNA Members."
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> fun mailing list
> fun@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun