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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On 20 Sep 2013, at 16:08, Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9/20/13 8:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> I believe the draft meets the charter goals. It's certainly a snapshot,
>>> and should be labelled as such, but it isn't intended to stray much
>>> outside layer 3, and shouldn't.
>>> 
>>> Whether work is need in the application eco-system for home networks
>>> is a separate discussion.
>> FWIW, I agree with Brian. (And I'm speaking as an author and WG participant, not with my AD hat on.)
>> 
> 
> For the benefit of those of us who weren't in Berlin, can somebody outline what
> the relationship is between this group and the (m?)dnsext bof/wg?

This wasn't discussed in the dnssdext BoF.

However, the BoF steered dnssdext towards SD, and away from naming, instead agreeing to put a deliverable in the charter about the naming issues arising, which at least two people have volunteered to work on already. dnssdext also has multiple scenarios, including home networks, but also academic/commercial enterprise, pan, mesh and 'hotspot'.

The homenet architecture doc has scoped to cover routing, prefix configuration, security, naming and SD, so the overlap, if dnssdext is formed, is the SD element of homenet, and the naming issues arising. My understanding is that homenet will produce more specific draft(s) on naming and SD, and I think at the moment the most useful 'collaboration' is to ensure homenet SD requirements are captured in the dnssdext requirements draft. It obviously makes sense for there to be common work here, the question is perhaps more over timing, and whether a single solution is possible.

But you'll need a homenet chair or an AD for a more formal answer.

Tim