Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Ted Lemon
> Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it was discussed in the meeting.   You're allowed to be one of the people who's in favor of it, despite being chair.   Indeed, as > chair, you can just adopt it by fiat if you want.   I actually agree with Ray and Michael that Juliusz reasoning was flawed, and am definitely in favor of adopting it and working on it.   I also agree with 
> Andrew that it shouldn't be the final word on naming in the homenet.

Here are my non-chair thoughts.
I do think there is value in defining a home network naming / DNS architecture. I (enthusiastically) support adoption of the concept.
The non-boilerplate part of the table of contents is about "Name Resolution", with headers for "Configuring Resolvers", "Configuring Service Discovery", "Resolution of local names", "DNSSEC Validation", "Support for Multiple Provisioning Domains", "Using the Local Namespace While Away From Home". I support these as a good initial set of headers for a table of contents.
I don't like requiring DNS proxy in all homenet routers and would like to explore other options. But the DNS resolver does have to be somewhere in the premises.
I'd like to actually explore what we could for DNSSEC in the context of some holistic home network "key" architecture, and maybe we could discuss some more even while agreeing it's out of scope for this doc. 
I agree with scoping to internal resolution and not dealing with external resolution. But I recognize others might want to discuss more.
I fully agree with this being a separate "provisioning domain", but I'm not fully convinced the proposed solution is the right one. 

Conclusion: As long as we can keep discussion alive and healthy, and not go to WGLC prematurely, I'm in favor of adoption.
The main reason I hesitated to lend support is from bad experience in other groups where authors have tried to object to comments on the basis of "you supported adoption, this text was in the draft when it was adopted, and you didn't object to this text prior to adoption". But so long as the chairs don't tolerate this sort of attitude, I think we'll be fine. BTW, I've never seen that attitude from Ted or Daniel. And I have confidence in the chairs' ability to be intolerant.

Barbara