Re: [homenet] lack of discussion
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 08 June 2020 00:46 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388933A07F2 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DdNdy0y-cDSK for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E756F3A07EE for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753CD389F0; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 20:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id W2HbWcAYhInI; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 20:43:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E76389EE; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 20:43:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF4F213; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 20:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "'homenet@ietf.org'" <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <586edaef61b64a549929ccf974029cfd@att.com>
References: <586edaef61b64a549929ccf974029cfd@att.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2020 20:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <32012.1591577165@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/9pDYYjnP9IAMNzNCl_s0v3SG7xs>
Subject: Re: [homenet] lack of discussion
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:46:16 -0000
STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote: > Hi homenet, While Michael and Daniel put some effort into their draft > prior to IETF 107, there's been no subsequent discussion of it on the > list. And no new activity on the draft. In the absence of activity, > Stephen and I don't think homenet should request time during IETF 108. Hi, I agree that our document is not making as much progress as we'd like. I haven't been able to get back to testing Ray's code, and Ray was ill, and Daniel has been getting dial tone when he has tried to engage us :-) So I feel that invoking closure on us is a bit premature given the global situation. I do not object to having no meeting at 108. > It may be time to close homenet and move the draft elsewhere (like > maybe INT area). {I, generally, dislike "closing" WGs, as it seems so much harder to re-open than to re-charter, but in any case the ML will stay open, I'm sure. I am very sad about the HOMENET situation.} > If you disagree, this is best expressed this through technical > discussion and activities. I believe that Ted's discussion was very relevant, but it did not go anywhere beyond the 6 or so of us who have chatted about that. I believe that Ted's ideas should go to go 6man. {I believe that the home network situation is significant more relevant to e2e architecture than SPRING} I think that the most important thing that has happened in the past two years is TR-369 (UCP), which I know Barbara had a hand in. I would like to see this work discussed more widely in the IETF. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
- [homenet] lack of discussion STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [homenet] lack of discussion Daniel Migault
- Re: [homenet] lack of discussion Michael Richardson