[fun] new version of the charter
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 16 June 2011 05:16 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 D767B11E80BC for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, 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 SDXSvOWyQOxo for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8514811E80B4 for <fun@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8672CC3B for <fun@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:16:05 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NyKCaeIF4Svk for <fun@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:16:03 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FA72CC2F for <fun@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:16:03 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4DF99193.3070305@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:16:03 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fun@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [fun] new version of the charter
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 05:16:08 -0000
Mark Townsley provided me with a suggested edit of the charter. I think it looks pretty good. Thoughts? Home Networks (homenet) ----------------------------------- Current Status: Proposed Last Edit: Friday, June 16th, 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 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. o Home networks are moving from a "one size fits all" model to incorporation of dedicated segments for specific purposes. For instance, a common feature in modern home routers in the ability to support both guest and private network segments. Similar needs for separation 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 and 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 and necessary additional tools addressing this full scope of requirements: o prefix configuration for routers o managing routing o name resolution o service discovery o network security Specifically, the group will 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. In addition, the group will apply existing protocols to handle the five requirements above. For prefix configuration, DHCPv6 PD is an obvious candidate solution, possibly supplemented by 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 are needed to mDNS and DNS-SD 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 and other standards bodies. 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 get feedback on DNS issues from 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. Milestones: Oct 2011 First WG draft on the architecture 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 Submission of the architecture draft to the IESG as Informational RFC 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
- [fun] new version of the charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] new version of the charter David Harrington