IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 October 2014 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8361A1BBC; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=ham
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 aE5JA6LEnNoA; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:44:11 -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 813831A00ED; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 05:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9E20012; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B934E63AED; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:44:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1FF638D7; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:44:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <626B3345-F1B9-4EF0-8957-8EBAA81540B1@townsley.net>
References: <542BFFAE.1080105@cisco.com> <CD1269E0-96B5-4A1A-8C1C-93DAB44068D4@iki.fi> <542C59B3.10700@gmail.com> <5F26857C-1C41-4D1F-AA4A-B7D9E947180F@townsley.net> <542CC380.1030600@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2aK8zzhJXTbbOf=kshQa8gpK4jeCCCn5Enzg-A6L3ZCA@mail.gmail.com> <626B3345-F1B9-4EF0-8957-8EBAA81540B1@townsley.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
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-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 08:44:09 -0400
Message-ID: <25295.1412685849@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/U4DOHXH_QoovpJznRkFTPNAhd3Q
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 07 Oct 2014 12:44:13 -0000

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> wrote:
    > The charter as written now aims to develop building blocks which can be
    > applied commonly across a wide range of networks including enterprise,
    > SP, (home?), and IOT, yet the very first use-case listed in order to
    > provide WG focus is restricted to carrier-only? (and, to Lorenzo's
    > point, what does that actually mean with respect to IP address
    > assignment?)

    > If a carrier-only use-case is doing its job of focusing the WG, it will
    > naturally lead to carrier-centric building blocks, contradictory to the
    > stated goal of the group.

I want to change the word "carrier-only" for "professionally-managed" in your
wording, and therefore agree, and say, "Good"

Managed networks, be they in ISPs or industrial IoT settings have different
(perhaps simpler) solutions than in the home.   I think the assumption that
"IoT" implies homenet networks is incorrect: there are lots of IoT which is
not in the home; and I totally agree that managed-solutions are inappropriate
in the home.

I don't think one-size fits-all here.

I suggest that ANIMA focus on "professionally-managed" networks first, with
"Homenet" being a secondary consideration, akin to IPv4 is in the homenet WG.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email