Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation

I like Joe Touch's general approach.

I don't see where the IETF has any experience in producing standards for home and other small, private networks - except for mDNS, which has taken an absurdly long amount of time and is surely going to be out of date by the time it is an RFC.  Another challenge is that usability issues are a major concern in home and SOHO networks - also not a forte of the IETF to date AFAICT.  

I support doing work on home-network routing and related charter items in the IETF, but it seems prudent to start small and less ambitious for some of the reasons mentioned above. PILC might be an example to follow.

I do get your point that it is not possible to do BCPs without having done requirements that take into account home network applications, services, protocols, topologies, owners and users.    

Mark
On Sep 25, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> On 9/24/10 5:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> FWIW, I view the first steps here along the lines of PILC, i.e.,
>> document best practices using existing protocols.
>> 
>> If that process hints that there are potential gaps, then I would expect
>> we would/could be rechartered to determine the gaps, and indicate where
>> and how they would be best addressed.
>> 
>> If there are gaps and no other WG is more appropriate to do the work, or
>> if it needs to be coordinated, then we could try to recharter for that
>> task.
>> 
>> I do agree with the current approach, though - not to jump in assuming
>> this is a new architectural component, or that it requires new
>> protocols, until we understand what's really missing first.
> 
> What "current approach" do you agree with?
> 
> For example, the message from David included specifically that no
> "protocol gap analysis" would be permitted within the WG, so I am
> assuming you don't mean the approach laid out in that email.
> 
> - Mark
> 
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> On 9/24/2010 7:42 AM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote:
>>> I also had questioned some of the aims of the proposed group when other
>>> groups
>>> were doing most, if not all, of the same things (albeit wearing
>>> different hats)
>>> 
>>> On 9/24/2010 4:30 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, that is my position too.
>>>> 
>>>> Ray
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> homegate mailing list
>>>> homegate@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
>>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> homegate mailing list
>> homegate@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate