Re: [homegate] A new proposed charter (and name) for HOMEGATE

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On 9/9/10 1:41 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/7/2010 10:04 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>> Mark Townsley and I, with lots of help from Ole Troan and input from
>> various ADs and from Jason, have authored a new potential charter for
>> this group.
> 
> Overall the proposed charter looks much better than before.
> Some clarifications suggested below.
> 
>> --8<--8<--
> 
>> A home network can include a variety of data-link technologies, be it
>> Ethernet, 802.11, 802.15.4 or power line communication.
> 
> Please add "MoCA" (over coax) to the list.

Latest version (which is coming to the list shortly, we've been
incorporating comments from lots of angles) has "such as" here anyway.
I'd rather avoid making the list longer than it already is.

> 
>> Connected
>> devices may be as diverse as personal computers, televisions, digital
>> video recorders, telephones, computing tablets, digital cameras,
>> IP-enabled light switches, gaming consoles, audio output speakers, smart
>> electricity meters, toys, printers, routers and more.
> 
> Seems we should add "bridges" to that list. 8-)

Well, hopefully a bridge is transparent to L3 and above. Can we just say
this is part of "and more" ?

> The devices are listed in plural form, perhaps as a grammar artifact,
> or do we explicitly want to address multiple routerS?

Yes, we want to address multiple routers. That will be more clear in the
bullet list later in the charter.

> 
> 
>> The home network provides important local connectivity,
> 
> Seems we should delete "important" unless we clarify what was implied.

OK.

> Was it an implicit reference to QoS?

No, that was not the intent. Just that local connectivity, even without
internet connectivity, is important. But I am ok taking out the word as
it is apparently confusing.

> 
>> Internet connectivity through one
>> or more Internet Service Providers, and connectivity to closed networks,
>> such as corporate VPNs and walled garden services.
> 
> Perhaps we should scope that to "personal usage of corporate VPNs"
> so we dont stray to far into small/medium office.

How about we scope this to "IP connectivity of..."

I agree that a corporate VPN is where we start venturing into soho
territory. Based on a comment from Lars, we've amended the first
sentence to include "home office" ... but not "small office". This is a
difficult designation, and perhaps we need to include some text from our
earlier exchange to be clear, though I am very sensitive to Andrew's
comment that we cannot list all negative cases, and we don't want to end
up writing the architecture document in the charter.

> 
> 
>> - Support for IPv4 and IPv6 with zero configuration,
> 
> Please add "simultaneously both" before IPv4 to make the simultaneous
> requirement explicit.

I think that in general, any work we do on IPv4 that also works for IPv6
is find and good. But, we very well end up developing solutions that
work with IPv6 that do not work with IPv4.

> 
>> - Simple naming for devices in the home network, so they can be accessed
>>   from within the home network as well as from elsewhere on the
>>   Internet.
> 
> The later "internet" naming requirement seems to imply a
> larger domain effort that probably should be outside the scope of homenet?

The problem is that we believe we cannot develop a solution that handles
naming internally without at least considering the external world at the
same time (in particular for any solutions involving DNS). Also, I think
that remote access into the home is something that is of high importance
to at least "future" network requirements.

> 
> 
>> - Support for connections to multiple Internet service providers or
>>   closed networks (VPNs, walled gardens) at the same time
> 
> I suppose there will be a lot of future discussion on whether the burden
> to achieve that should fall on the router or the clients.
> 
> 
>> - Effective queuing and forwarding mechanisms to enable efficient
>>   communication between network segments of different speeds.
> 
> append: ", latencies and error rates".

OK.

> 
> 
>> - Support for DNSSEC validation within the home network.
> 
> It seems odd to call out one specific protocol in this bullet list.
> Generalize or remove.

The cost of doing business with the IETF these days is IPv6 and DNSSEC.

> 
> 
>> The working group will work together with other standards development
>> organizations that define requirements on home networking devices
>> (including groups such as the Home Gateway Initiative, Broadband Forum,
>> CableLabs, UPnP, DLNA, etc.).
> 
> some folks have a very limited definition of SDOs, so please add "and fora"
> after "organizations". (The examples imply fora, but let's make it
> explicit)

Done.

- Mark

> 
> 
> regards, kiwin
>