Dear WG, At IETF-103 Ted lead a good discussion of where we're at and where we and others in the homenet space may be heading. One key aspect of that discussion is that we might (or might not) be working on specs that have been overtaken by events e.g. in the sense that perhaps there are now sufficient other options that people are less likely to implement the specs we currently have as WG documents.
As chairs, we have also noted the relative lack of activity on the list in recent months, which could also be related to a lack of interest in implementing and deploying our current WG drafts. We'd therefore like to have a discussion on the list, between now and IETF-104 as to what the WG ought be doing. It's fine to offer general opinions, but as a way to break it down, we basically have two bits of work in-hand: (a) work on simple naming [1] and (b) the drafts on handling names with help from your ISP. [2,3] (We also have a chartered work item [4] on security that has seen no progress but you can comment on that as item (c) if you like;-) Ted also has some concrete ideas for work to do at the upcoming hackathon. We've asked him to start a separate thread on that and would love to see people participate in that. We think there are a few potential positions that participants in the discussion may have (or end up having) with respect to each of those, perhaps: (1) it's great work and I plan to implement or deploy - see you at the hackathon! (2) it's great work and I'll be actively engaged with it in the coming months reviewing drafts and posting to the list (3) I do care about this stuff getting done, but I don't have the time/management interest to spend the time I'd like. (4) I'm not that interested in this stuff, but I don't object, and I'll read some drafts as I'm able to. (5) it's fine stuff, but IMO not going to be used, so there's not much point in producing RFCs (6) not sure at the moment, maybe the WG should go quiescent for a while 'till we know more If one of those positions captures your opinion, feel free to respond in shorthand. Otherwise, please tell us where you think we ought be going, as a WG, with (a), (b) and/or (c). To be clear, we're happy to proceed according to the consensus of the WG participants whatever that may be. That could mean trying to accelerate some work, or closing down the WG, or anything in between, assuming we see enough engagement in discussion and that there's a rough consensus that we can call. As chairs, we want to allow plenty of time for this, and are considering devoting (part of) a f2f session to bottoming out on this topic at IETF-104 if that's needed, but we'd like to be reassured that the WG think we're working on the right things now, and that those are likely to be implemented and hopefully deployed. We'd really appreciate it if you can send an initial response to this mail in the next week so we can start to build an agenda for our session at IETF-104. Thanks B&S. (As chairs) [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation [3] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/ [4] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/charters
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet