Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation
Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 10:52 UTC
Return-Path: <townsley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962063A6B14 for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sgyGPbVSdieQ for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862ED3A6B3E for <homegate@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao4FAH4fnEyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACUQ417cadanC2CcYJSBIo6
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,229,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="191428732"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2010 10:53:20 +0000
Received: from iwan-view2.cisco.com (iwan-view2.cisco.com [171.70.65.8]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8OArKRZ012742 for <homegate@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:53:20 GMT
Received: from dhcp-144-254-58-183.cisco.com (dhcp-144-254-58-183.cisco.com [144.254.58.183]) by iwan-view2.cisco.com (8.11.2/CISCO.WS.1.2) with ESMTP id o8OArJH29744 for <homegate@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C9C831D.2050307@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:53:17 +0200
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homegate@ietf.org
References: <2BD6ED58-174E-451F-BA22-0C824629FBB7@nominet.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2BD6ED58-174E-451F-BA22-0C824629FBB7@nominet.org.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:52:49 -0000
Good day everyone. As I have seen very little response to David, I presume everyone is busy, confused, or is suffering from a case of "Too Long; Didn't Read." This is a summary of what the IESG and IAB is saying, as I understand it: Homenet might be allowed to exist, but only if it agrees now to not develop any home networking architecture documents, not perform any protocol gap analysis, not extend any protocols, nor recommend the extension of any protocols. There is a provision that the above can still happen in the IETF, but only outside of Homenet, just as anyone could do today via individual drafts, presentation to other WGs, etc. I don't know how to parse this other than the potential Homenet group being the one place where we would actively avoid doing a large chunk of Home Networking work. In short, what is left are feature BCPs directed at vendors. My personal view is that this is directing the group towards maximum overlap with the existing forums and standards bodies in this area (including IETF's on v6ops*), and not the direction Ray and I wanted to try and lead the group based on the feedback we were hearing from you. I think the question on the table now is whether it is worthwhile to charter homenet for just this type of work or not. I tend to think the answer to that is no, but I want to hear from the list first. - Mark * "BCP Work" for IPv6 home networking is covered within the newly proposed v6ops charter: ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/v6ops/v6ops-new-charter-00.txt "4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks."
- [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Ray Bellis
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Ray Bellis
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Joe Touch
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Jaime Fink
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Mark Baugher
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Fred Baker
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Ole Troan
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation Ray Bellis
- Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation David Harrington