Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,
At 05:55 19-09-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
>I think that you are interpreting this document 
>to be something that it is not, and cannot yet 
>be.   What this document is is an architecture 
>for the homenet working group—a crib sheet that 
>tells us what we are trying to accomplish.   I 
>don't think it's intended to be something that a 
>random person who is not implementing home 
>gateways would find useful.   The working group 
>is hoping that subsequent versions of this 
>document will evolve over time, and I think it 
>would be good for the working group to evolve 
>the document into something that meets the goals that you've set out above.

The problem may be that the document uses the 
word "architecture".  The sense I got after 
reviewing the document was that it was more of a 
requirements document instead of one about 
architecture.  I may not be implementing home 
gateways but I would still read the document to 
understand what assumptions I can make for my 
IPv6 application.  This entails understanding how 
what the working group is trying to accomplish 
affects my area of interest.  If I look at the 
document as one about requirements I'll conclude 
that there isn't anything that has an impact on application technologies.

I agree that it would be good for the working 
group to evolve the document (see my previous 
comments about stabilizing the document and 
having a discussion about unresolved issues).  It 
might have been missed in my comments; what I am 
saying is that the working group already has the 
text it needs to get the work done; what's left 
is some rearrangement and tightening of the text to get a crisp document.

>However, I think that if the working group 
>attempts to do that now, two things will 
>happen.  First, the working group won't actually 
>get to the work it's supposed to be doing, 
>because completing the architecture document 
>will continue to be an all-consuming 
>effort.   Second, the document that is produced 
>will be purely theoretical, not based on actual practice, and probably useless.

Agreed.

That's why I emphasized the it "just works" in my 
previous comment.  I would leave it to the 
working group to make the trade-offs so that the 
document is about something that will actually 
work in practice.  I would assess the effort so 
that it does not turn into an all-consuming one.

>So I would like you to consider whether you can 
>accept this restatement of the purpose of the 
>document.   Do you feel that this document 
>cannot be of use until it meets the goals you've 
>set out above, or does the different purpose 
>I've expressed here make sense to you?   If the 
>latter, can you reconsider your review in light 
>of this new stated purpose for the 
>document?   Is part of the problem that the 
>goals of the document are poorly expressed in 
>the document?   Given the goals I've stated, do 
>all of your comments still apply, or would you 
>have responded differently to the document if 
>you'd been evaluating it on the basis I'm proposing?

I think that the document can be of use to the 
working group.  The document may not be that 
clear to people from outside the area.  I guess 
that the problem may be, as mentioned above, the 
goals of the document.  If the document is a 
(Informational) crib sheet I would rate it as good enough.

It's unfair of me to submit such a review at this 
late stage.  I have not taken into consideration 
the amount of effort involved in getting the 
draft this far.  I'll defer to the document shepherd (or you).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy