IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 24 October 2012 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 21B1E1F0C4C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id raD8u3NMGxWe for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B777E1F0419 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [75.98.19.132]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D86181AA; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320A6CA0C6; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <4C5FCEF8-5DE1-41BD-B741-0A33203E7A17@gmail.com>
References: <4C5FCEF8-5DE1-41BD-B741-0A33203E7A17@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> message dated "Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:13:58 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:25:39 -0400
Message-ID: <30773.1351121139@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:25:55 -0000

RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
    RJ> It might be useful for James Woodyatt's notes about these
    RJ> technical issues to get written up as an Informational RFC, to
    RJ> help document the technical issues/operational issues for any
    RJ> new participants here (and more generally for IETF newcomers who
    RJ> might not immediately grasp the issues).

...+1

    RJ> PS: Yes, I understand this won't stop a vendor from shipping
    RJ> NPT66, but we can at least make it clear that NPT66 has
    RJ> significant technical limitations and unresolved issues, so is
    RJ> NOT part of the Home Net solution set.

more importantly, if said document was written from a SHOULD
point of view rather than a strict SHOULD NOT, it might be possible
for a large buyer of either equipment or services to use it as part of
an RFP.  This could be a media ISP procuring settop boxes, or
a hospital procuring digital TV services, or a government department
procuring a managed VPN service, etc.




-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email