[homenet] draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming-00
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 08:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 9704D126E3A for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=cEZuTHVk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Mc/+yQUO
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 wXURXKyMsUFk for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8554C131771 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC66BD996 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:56:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500281776; bh=Uzyg80vNIPhBthTxgPkPj5kWzkxv9HJbyzOHoMZ0ea0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=cEZuTHVkdOTTJAs4hGBbQfM+Q1ZBttREWFZm8cSVJlccRdajDwWS5MCGkczVh9fHC P6VpxxskLxQyyh66gMAg1DsYG7Gy5uJZb+OtAhYSlb6YJn/G4/Uw04N84PKDAWBgJb 9tcx4J6+6WAbkZxKsne+fT4JbNZMIuxiQi4y5mAE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-ubrcR0pXyZ for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:56:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 04:56:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1500281775; bh=Uzyg80vNIPhBthTxgPkPj5kWzkxv9HJbyzOHoMZ0ea0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=Mc/+yQUOW0tBwzxbM0I1bQFIFl0OLML+rTUxbTy7Dh0/Cf6gM983fnI5G04WfQIZ7 zD+1lHk2WCUoAygKub/0bKf6KmunbRGxO9zsgWzhXN3i7Pg3RcWMnmItO3YDF6716y JNnPhML6461gsCMyYFvMtuhbJ5ajFq47SY/sZV1Y=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: homenet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170717085610.qphtk7jrk4oi3s2l@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/vdglVsDaGrsnszhGv2UgXV7SumE>
Subject: [homenet] draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming-00
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:56:48 -0000
Hi, I read draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming-00. I think this is an interesting idea, in that it attempts to carve out a small and achievable but limited naming arrangement. There are a couple things I'd say, however: 1. It seems to me that this approach is made "simple" partly by pruning requirements. For instance, RFC 7368 says this: The naming system will be required to work internally or externally, whether the user is within or outside of the homenet, i.e., the user should be able to refer to devices by name, and potentially connect to them, wherever they may be. The present I-D solves that problem by rejecting the premise: names just won't work outside the homenet. That might be the right answer, but it might be good for the document to be explicit about what parts of 7368 it will or will not satisfy. 2. There are some parts of the document that rule tricky problems out of scope. I think this is too puch punting. Either the WG should say how we're going to address those tricky problems, or else this document should just say, "Not possible under this specification". What I think is less good is to have a bunch of hard things that aren't in scope, and nowhere that scope is defined, because that encourages the tricky things to be solved in non-interoperating ways. I think that would be bad. I confess that my inner architecture astronaut liked the more complex approach better, because it proposed to solve more problems. But my pragmatic self wants to ship something and make some progress, and I'm not sure that a bigger scope than the present draft is going to get finished. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [homenet] draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming-00 Andrew Sullivan