Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation
"Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" <hkirksey@motive.com> Mon, 27 September 2010 09:36 UTC
Return-Path: <hkirksey@motive.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 C14B73A6CAA for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.924
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_MARKET=2.3]
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 APA3ro8dAwrQ for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1813A6CA9 for <homegate@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o8R9bQWQ028653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:37:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o8R9bP38020264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:37:25 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSB2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.135]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:37:25 -0500
From: "Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" <hkirksey@motive.com>
To: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, "homegate@ietf.org" <homegate@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:37:25 -0500
Thread-Topic: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation
Thread-Index: Actb1sT7b7eNCKm2TMyjbiJDfOLTIQCTmsXA
Message-ID: <E1323EC8B0E4E54B84BCDA9ECC636A8257B1AF7E@USNAVSXCHMBSB2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <2BD6ED58-174E-451F-BA22-0C824629FBB7@nominet.org.uk> <4C9C831D.2050307@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C9C831D.2050307@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
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: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:36:53 -0000
Mark et al, Apologies as I was in the "busy" category travelling in Asia last week. I also was rather disappointed at the caveats to the BoF/chartering exercise. Rather than reducing the possibility of overlap with efforts such as BBF TR-124 (as well as HGI residential profiles), it seems that this new direction is more likely to encourage such overlap. Additionally, some of the work that I know the operators are looking to see from the IETF (such as v6 guidance in complex topologies) seems off the table now. I do respect the concerns being raised around the Homenet scope being rather large. I would much rather have seen that resulting in a prioritization exercise and whittling of the topics to be addressed in the proposal from Mark and Ray than a re-orientation towards device requirements, however. Mark, I agree with your assessment that chartering a group for just this type of work is unlikely to be worthwhile. Thanks, Heather -----Original Message----- From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Townsley Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:53 AM To: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation 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 mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
- [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