Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consideration
"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 27 June 2011 17:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDA011E814D for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.765
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W6uMaBuPwea4 for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBE911E814E for <fun@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 159b1h0031ei1Bg595saeo; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:52:34 +0000
Received: from davidPC ([67.189.235.106]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 15sR1h00h2JQnJT3k5sSwN; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:52:31 +0000
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 'IAB' <iab@iab.org>, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, ipdir@ietf.org, fun@ietf.org
References: <4E031DCD.1010606@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E031DCD.1010606@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:52:21 -0400
Message-ID: <BEF28DA8BF08419EA670A910D2438F28@davidPC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7600.16807
Thread-Index: AcwxlWHxRNcuhSEbSQa20cBMncQjdwDUSJ7Q
Subject: Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consideration
X-BeenThere: fun@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "FUture home Networking \(FUN\)" <fun.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun>
List-Post: <mailto:fun@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:52:39 -0000
Hi, I think work on home networking standards is very important, and strongly support the effort. A little guidance on how I think this charter can be improved. >From the 110623 version, "Specific protocol work described below is anticipated to be within the scope of the working group. However, the group is required to review its charter and milestones with the IESG and IETF community before submitting documents that make protocol changes." "anticipated to be within the scope" is very unclear as to what is or is not in scope. Is that "anticipated to be within the scope" AFTER a re-charter, and thus is NOT NOW is scope of this charter? or is that "anticipated to be within the scope", so WG members can interpret it as being in scope NOW? My concern, and the concern of others, was that the original charter was too open-ended and did not provide for IETF review of the architecture and the potential changes it might drive before the WG was chartered to make such changes. This left potentially important, and possibly bad, changes in protocols to be caught in IETF Last Call or IESG Evaluation, rather than in a review of the proposed protocol work during the chartering process. The charter text makes it obvious that the engineering changes are not yet clearly understood: "The architecture document should drive what protocols changes, if any, are necessary." "existing protocols are likely sufficient, and at worst may need some small enhancements, ..." "it is expected that existing routing protocols can be used as is, however, a new mechanism may be needed ..." "The main goal of this [security] work is to enable a security policy that adapts to IPv6 threats as they emerge,..." This sounds more like the description of an IRTF RG than an IETF WG. The ***engineering*** apparently is not yet clearly understood, and the "specific protocol work described below" is not at all specific. If the engineering is not yet understood, then I think research needs to be done, and a resulting architecture document needs to be clear about what specific engineering work is needed, and a subsequent re-charter should be clear about the ***engineering*** work to be done. David Harrington Director, IETF Transport Area ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com +1 603 828 1401 (cell) > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:05 AM > To: IAB; IESG; ipdir@ietf.org > Subject: Revised homenet charter for IESG consideration > > Secretary (Bcced), > > Please start an internal review and place this charter for > consideration > for external review in today's IESG telechat. (We will not approve it > for external review today, it will take at least until next > week. But I > would like to discuss it anyway.) > > All, > > This charter has been revised per discussion from the BOF call last > week. The biggest change is that the group is required to produce an > architecture document and then come back to the IESG/community to ask > for revising/confirming the rest of its charter. My plan is to create > the working group before Quebec City. Should that fail, the > backup plan > is to run a BOF. But I personally believe this is something > we could and > should charter now. I understand the concerns people raised > in the BOF > call and I'm hoping that this version has made some > significant progress > in resolving those concerns. > > Jari > > ----- > > Home Networks (homenet) > ----------------------------------- > > Current Status: Proposed > Last Edit: Friday, June 23rd, 2011 > > Chairs: > TBD > > Internet Area Directors: > Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> > Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > > Internet Area Advisor: > Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > > Routing Area Technical Advisor: > TBD > > Security Area Technical Advisor: > TBD > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: fun@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun > > Description of Working Group: > > This working group focuses on the evolving networking technology > within and among relatively small "residential home" networks. For > example, an obvious trend in home networking is the proliferation of > networking technology in an increasingly broad range and number of > devices. This evolution in scale and diversity sets some requirements > on IETF protocols. Some of the relevant trends include: > > o Multiple segments: While less complex L3-toplogies involving as few > subnets as possible are preferred in home networks for a variety of > reasons including simpler management and service discovery, > incorporation of dedicated segments remain necessary for some > cases. For instance, a common feature in modern home routers in the > ability to support both guest and private network segments. Also, link > layer networking technology is poised to become more heterogeneous, as > networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet technology and link > layers designed for low-powered sensor networks. Finally, similar > needs for segmentation may occur in other cases, such as separating > building control or corporate extensions from the Internet access > network. Different segments may be associated with subnets that have > different routing and security policies. > > o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is > increasingly available in home gateway devices. While IPv6 resembles > IPv4 in many ways, it changes address allocation principles and allows > direct IP addressability and routing to devices in the home from the > Internet. This is a promising area in IPv6 that has proved challenging > in IPv4 with the proliferation of NAT. > > o End-to-end communication is both an opportunity and a concern as it > enables new applications but also exposes nodes in the internal > networks to receipt of unwanted traffic from the Internet. Firewalls > that restrict incoming connections may be used to prevent exposure, > however, this reduces the efficacy of end-to-end connectivity that > IPv6 has the potential to restore. > > Home networks need to provide the tools to handle these situations in > a manner accessible to all users of home networks. Manual > configuration is rarely, if at all, possible. The purpose of this > working group is to focus on this evolution, in particular as it > addresses the introduction of IPv6, by developing an architecture > addressing this full scope of requirements: > > o prefix configuration for routers > o managing routing > o name resolution > o service discovery > o network security > > The task of the group is to produce an architecture document > that outlines > how to construct home networks involving multiple routers and > subnets. This document is expected to apply the IPv6 addressing > architecture, prefix delegation, global and ULA addresses, source > address selection rules and other existing components of the IPv6 > architecture. The architecture document should drive what protocols > changes, if any, are necessary. Specific protocol work described below > is anticipated to be within the scope of the working group. However, > the group is required to review its charter and milestones with the > IESG and IETF community before submitting documents that make protocol > changes. > > The group will apply existing protocols to handle the five > requirements above. For prefix configuration, existing protocols are > likely sufficient, and at worst may need some small enhancements, such > as new options. For automatic routing, it is expected that existing > routing protocols can be used as is, however, a new mechanism may be > needed in order to turn a selected protocol on by default. For name > resolution and service discovery, extensions to existing > multicast-based name resolution protocols are needed to enable them to > work across subnets. > > For network security, the group shall document the concept of > "advanced security" as a further development of "simple security" from > RFC 6092. The main goal of this work is to enable a security policy > that adapts to IPv6 threats as they emerge, taking into account not > only traffic from the Internet at large, but within and leaving the > home network itself. > > It is expected that the working group will define a set of protocol > specifications to accomplish the five requirements from > above. However, it is not in the scope of the working group to define > entirely new routing protocols or address allocation protocols. As > noted, additional options or other small extensions may be necessary > to use the existing protocols in these new configuration tasks. The > working group shall also not make any changes to IPv6 protocols or > addressing architecture. Prefix configuration, routing, and security > related work shall not cause any changes that are not backwards > compatible to existing IPv6 hosts. There may be host visible changes > in the work on naming and discovery protocols, however. In its design, > the working group shall also consider security aspects and the impact > on manageability. The main focus of the working group is home > networks, but the group's results may also find applications in other > small networks. > > The working group will liaise with the relevant IETF working > groups. In particular, the group should work closely with the V6OPS > working group, review any use or extension of DHCP with the DHC > working group, and work with additional DNS requirements with the > DNSEXT and DNSOP working groups. If it turns out that additional > options are needed for a routing protocol, they will be developed in > the appropriate Routing Area working group, with the HOMENET working > group providing the architecture and requirements for such > enhancements. The working group will also liase with external > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > It is expected that in the architecture definition stage liaising > with the Broadband Forum, DLNA, and UPnP Forum is necessary. > > Milestones: > > Jul 2011 Formation of the working group > Sep 2011 First WG draft on the architecture > Dec 2011 Submission of the architecture draft to the IESG as > Informational RFC > Dec 2011 Charter re-evaluation based on the architecture work > Dec 2011 First WG draft on prefix configuration > Dec 2011 First WG draft on routing > Jan 2011 First WG draft on name resolution > Feb 2011 First WG draft on service discovery > Feb 2011 First WG draft on perimeter security > Feb 2012 Start of routing related work in the relevant routing area > working group, if needed > Mar 2012 Submission of the prefix configuration draft to the IESG as > Standards Track RFC > Apr 2012 Submission of the routing draft to the IESG as > Informational RFC > Jun 2012 Submission of the name resolution draft to the IESG as > Standards Track RFC > Jun 2012 Submission of the service discovery draft to the IESG as > Standards Track RFC > Aug 2012 Submission of the perimeter security draft to the IESG as > Informational RFC > >
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… David Harrington
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Ralph Droms
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Ralph Droms
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Randy Turner
- Re: [fun] [IAB] Revised homenet charter for IESG … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Ralph Droms
- Re: [fun] [IAB] Revised homenet charter for IESG … Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [IAB] Revised homenet charter for IESG … Ralph Droms
- Re: [fun] Revised homenet charter for IESG consid… Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] [ipdir] [IAB] Revised homenet charter f… Jari Arkko