Re: [homenet] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the review. I will provide a more complete review in a few days,
but here are some quick and partial responses.

Yours,
Daniel

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 7:16 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> According to the shepherd writeup (and assuming it still reflects reality
> today; it's dated July of this year, nine revisions ago), there are no
> implementations, and none are planned.

One of the co-author (Ray) implemented it, but it is not published. I am
planning to implement it as we recently had a use case for it.

> There's no Implementation Status
> section either.  However, in the reply to Paul's earlier DISCUSS, there as
> a
> claim that some part of this was implemented.  I've also been told there
> is one
> vendor planning to implement this, but that doesn't match the record.  Can
> someone clarify where we are today?  The existence of implementations would
> certainly allay the previous concerns about complexity and clarity that
> were
> expressed in other prior ballot positions.
>
> This document has been in development for over 10 years.  Assuming there
> is no
> wide deployment or an implementation to which one can refer, why are we
> publishing this on the standards track?  Wouldn't Experimental or
> Informational
> be more appropriate?  The shepherd writeup doesn't explain why Proposed
> Standard is justified; it just says "PS".
>
The reason we want a Standard Track is that our use case is 3GPP related
and 3GPP only considers Standard Track.

>
> (Please note that RFC 2026 says implementations aren't required, so I am
> not
> requiring one either by posting this ballot.  I just want to have the
> discussion.)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for all the work that went into this, especially since its last pass
> through the IESG.
>
> I generally found this to be readable if I look at it as an applicability
> statement (RFC 2026, Section 3.2) over DNS for the Homenet use case.  Was
> that
> the intent, or am I way off?
>
> Thanks to Darrel Miller for his ARTART review.  (A second review on the
> latest
> revision is pending as I write this.)
>
> The last bullet of Section 4.1.1 appears to be mangled in a few places.
> Please
> review.
>
> I have my usual complaint about the use of SHOULD throughout the document:
> SHOULD provides implementers with a choice, and generally the SHOULDs here
> don't acknowledge that choice or provide implementers with any guidance
> about
> when it might be appropriate to exercise that choice.  I suggest reviewing
> them
> (there are 25, and 6 RECOMMENDEDs) and either adding such prose, or
> reconsidering whether they should be MUST or MAY.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson