Hi all, We'd really appreciate more feedback on this topic, so could you please take a few minutes to give us some more guidance on where you want to see the work go from here...
Thanks, S. On 01/03/2019 21:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
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