> It seems that the definition of the coined term "professionally managed" > is somewhat ambiguous.
+1 Here is the way I see things going. Note that I'm not proposing this as a direction where IETF needs to drive things. I'm describing my pragmatic view of "what is" based on my experiences and knowledge. [FYI: Personally, I don't use ISP-managed routers in my home network; but I help design such devices and recognize that there are many consumers who like such devices and the level of support ISPs can provide them through such devices; I also recognize that ISPs have been able to significantly drive down help desk costs through providing such devices to the mass of consumers.] When talking about "service providers", I suggest considering the following roles: 1. Internet Service Provider (ISP): the provider of *an* Internet connection into the <premises> network; the ISP has incentive to offer basic support to get Internet connectivity working into the <premises> network 2. Application service provider (ASP): the provider of a specific application that is used in the <premises> network; e.g., voice, "TV", on-line gaming; there are two main means of delivery: a. ASP-managed device(s): e.g., STBs, DVRs, game consoles, specialized <premises> routers, home control gateways, VoIP ATAs (some which are in specialized <premises> routers), etc.; the ASP may have an entire "closed" network segment as part of the <premises> network b. ASP-supplied app; e.g., app or software installed by the user onto a PC/smartphone/tablet/etc. 3. Professional services provider / provider of contractual network management services; these providers will generally insist on the use of specific networking devices (routers, switches, bridges, networking technologies) that they are competent in managing; they may or may not try to specify end device capabilities. A single "service provider" entity may offer to perform one or more of these roles to the "owner(s)" of a <premises> network. Not all SPs who play a role in managing all or part of a <premises> network are ISPs. Not all SPs have an ISP-provided CE router as their centralized point of management. With this said, my preference for what *homenet* does, would be to focus on none of these service provider roles, except to make sure that the owner(s) can enable security mechanisms for homenet protocols for implementation on non-SP-managed devices to prevent ISPs and ASPs from doing things that the "owner" doesn't approve of. Please note, though, that SP-managed devices can be *anywhere* in the homenet: in CE routers, internal routers, and hosts. Please do not limit paranoia to a fear of the ISP and CE router. ASPs who have entire managed segments on the interior of the <premises> network will do this using equipment they supply and manage, that supports the protocols they want. If SPs (of any role) find they can use homenet protocols, they will specify implementation of these protocols in boxes they procure / supply / manage. Expect SPs to be able to manage the trust relationships on all devices they manage. I have no opinion on anima at this time. My personal interpretation of the reference to "ISP networks" in the proposed anima charter is that a <premises> network is never an "ISP network". ISP networks IMO are the networks that the ISP actually "owns" (e.g., the access network). If the intention of "ISP networks" in the proposed anima charter is to include professionally-managed-by-a-SP networks or ASP-managed segments or devices inside a <premises> network, I would suggest they be explicit about this intention. If that is indeed the intention, then I may have an opinion, after all. Barbara _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
