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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

At 08:31 19-09-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:

>On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Ted Lemon wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> I reiterate for you: If the IETF publishes 
> this document as it stands,     it will look 
> like, and be taken as, the official "Home 
> Networking     Architecture for IPv6". Change 
> the title (at least) to avoid this. I 
> even     proposed alternate title texts. How 
> much more constructive would you     like?
> >>
> >> That is the goal of the document.   And that 
> is what the document is.   The problem with 
> your suggestions is that they propose that we 
> give the document at title that does not 
> describe what it is.   Perhaps a better title 
> would be "Preliminary Home Network Architecture for IPv6."

I like Dave's idea of having a different title 
for the draft.  The problem, to state it in 
simple terms, was "architecture".  The problem 
could be solved by using a different term, e.g. 
framework.  I would avoid "preliminary architecture" (see comment below).

> > There's been a few cases over the years where 
> a document has been published knowing full well 
> it's not complete, or that there would be a 
> replacement within the lifetime of the working 
> group, I know. But all the ones I can 
> immediately think of were cases where the 
> document could clearly provide value to people 
> outside the IETF, and the document stood on its own.

I am not keen on the idea of committing to do future work on a replacement.

> > This document is, to my eyes, borderline for 
> this. In point of fact, you don't seem to be 
> arguing it should be thrust in front of the 
> noses of every TP-Link and so on; you talk 
> above about making it available to "the IETF as 
> a whole". I appreciate an RFC (and the 
> publication process surrounding it) acts as a 
> useful mechanism for internal publicity and 
> awareness, of course, but I'd be more 
> comfortable if this were handled by an explicit 
> note to [e-mail] asking for cross-area review.

Yes.

>Hm, okay, now I think we're getting 
>somewhere.   I think the reason the IETF should 
>publish this is that there is no clear "outside" 
>to the IETF—everybody is welcome.   So part of 
>the goal of publishing it ought to be to put a 
>stake in the sand that CPE vendors will pay 
>attention to, and possibly criticize.   That 
>won't happen with a working group 
>document.   But I think you are right that it 
>would help to be clearer about that.   Do

I understand the goal and I am okay with it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy