STARK, BARBARA H <bs7...@att.com> wrote:
> Hi homenet, While Michael and Daniel put some effort into their draft
> prior to IETF 107, there's been no subsequent discussion of it on the
> list. And no new activity on the draft. In the absence of activity,
> Stephen and I don't think homenet should request time during IETF 108.
Hi, I agree that our document is not making as much progress as we'd like.
I haven't been able to get back to testing Ray's code, and Ray was ill,
and Daniel has been getting dial tone when he has tried to engage us :-)
So I feel that invoking closure on us is a bit premature given the global
situation. I do not object to having no meeting at 108.
> It may be time to close homenet and move the draft elsewhere (like
> maybe INT area).
{I, generally, dislike "closing" WGs, as it seems so much harder
to re-open than to re-charter, but in any case the ML will stay open,
I'm sure. I am very sad about the HOMENET situation.}
> If you disagree, this is best expressed this through technical
> discussion and activities.
I believe that Ted's discussion was very relevant, but it did not go
anywhere beyond the 6 or so of us who have chatted about that.
I believe that Ted's ideas should go to go 6man.
{I believe that the home network situation is significant more relevant to e2e
architecture than SPRING}
I think that the most important thing that has happened in the past two years
is TR-369 (UCP), which I know Barbara had a hand in. I would like to see
this work discussed more widely in the IETF.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
