Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation

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