IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 95B9D21F9985; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWvfSw-fBdrY; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E431411E816D; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUkG3Q5vX/zadL7vvWKBvRJVbRRhl0MTH@postini.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:09 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E6B1B82E1; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23DCE19006E; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:01:06 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1811\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <14439.1380035891@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:01:03 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <76716D93-E946-4682-BE1C-CF2DC0434CE5@nominum.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130914143222.0b9590f0@elandnews.com> <C4F6B742-3784-48BA-8B97-BE3B8972DC39@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|72d902bbed65dc8b06cf46c298d30fe1p8I0CV03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C4F6B742-3784-48BA-8B97-BE3B8972DC39@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20130918225335.0d0e2478@elandnews.com> <14439.1380035891@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1811)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "<apps-discuss@ietf.org>" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-homenet-arch.all@tools.ietf.org, "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:02:02 -0000

On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> I believe that perhaps the title is now wrong.
> I think that it should say:
>    "Requirements for Home Networking for IPv6"
> 
> (But, it's really more than requirements. It's just less than architecture)

I previously suggested "Preliminary architecture ..."   Would that address your concern?   I don't think it's precisely a requirements document; the document does what the working group currently needs it to do, and I would hate to see us spend another couple of meeting cycles turning it into a formal requirements document unless someone can make a clear argument that doing so is necessary.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email