Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 30, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> and then there is draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative reference.
> 
> concerns me most.  Unless it's in RFC-editor queue (it's not, it's expired!),
> I'm pretty sure it's a very much normative reference.  So Homenet needs an
> answer as to how to deal with this dependancy.  It seems that we'd need to
> adopt it, copy and paste the text into this document, or reboot MIF...

There was widespread agreement in INTAREA to adopt this:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bruneau-intarea-provisioning-domains-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bruneau-intarea-provisioning-domains-02>

I actually intended to reference this—I just got my wires crossed because google gave me the link to the other one, which as you say is dead.

The current rev of the homenet naming architecture is pretty thin—I put a lot of work into the dnssd stuff, because I wanted to have it pretty solid before referencing it in the MPVD architecture document.   If you weren't in homenet, it might indeed be worth reviewing my presentation in the meetecho.   Stuart's presentation in dnssd might also be worth reviewing.

Anyway, a consequence of the emphasis on the dnssd work is that I had about an hour to update the naming architecture document before the submission deadline, and the update is minimal, to be as charitable as possible.

Daniel wanted to do another update, but we needed to sync up first, and I don't know where he is at with that now, but I think it would be reasonable to put the CFA on hold pending that update.   There have been some good comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that it would be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what I'm working on now.   I think having that done before the document is adopted is a pretty high bar, but I don't really care either way.

That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take on.   If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.

(BTW, Juliusz, yes, HNCP is where the domain name is agreed upon.)