Why has this been cross posted to the OpenWrt *Development* List? I fail to see any relevance to the usual and prevailing use of this list.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I'm dreaming of steadier funding for things I care about, > ietf homenet wg's work is nearly complete. > > *most* of the work is already done in openwrt to make all the ietf > homenet proposed standards work, and indeed, be the default in > openwrt. However nobody is funded anymore to take it further, and it > would be nice to see builds taking place and tested automagically - to > finally bring the dream of always interoperable, ipv6 capable cpe and > home routers, plugged in, every which way - a reality. > > There are still many details left to make it happen well and be a > truly usable set of interoperable standards - I have a huge list of > things still not encapsulated or negotiated right within the hncp > stack, such as wifi channel selection and uplink bandwidth, and babel > is in need of some love, there are some state machine bugs that need > squashing..... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> > Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:09 PM > Subject: [homenet] Protocol Action: 'Home Networking Control Protocol' > to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10.txt) > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-annou...@ietf.org> > Cc: homenet-cha...@ietf.org, m...@townsley.net, > draft-ietf-homenet-h...@ietf.org, The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, > home...@ietf.org, terry.mander...@icann.org, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > > > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'Home Networking Control Protocol' > (draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10.txt) as Proposed Standard > > This document is the product of the Home Networking Working Group. > > The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Terry Manderson. > > A URL of this Internet Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp/ > > > > > > Technical Summary > > This document describes the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP), > an extensible distributed configuration protocol for “unmanaged” > (e.g., functions that are not configured manually or by a central > management server of some kind) home network devices. The intent is to > provide a distributed protocol for flooding of basic configuration > state essential to IP network functionality. > > HNCP is described as a profile of and extension to the Distributed > Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP). HNCP enables discovery of network > topology and borders, automated configuration of addresses (using the > algorithm defined in draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-08), name > resolution, and service discovery. > > Working Group Summary > > The earliest roots of HNCP are in draft-acee-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-00 > (Oct 2011) which was eventually published as Standards Track RFC 7503, > with the expectation that other documents would define > HOMENET-specific TLVs to be carried inside OSPFv3. > > Strong resistance from the WG (as well as open source router software > developers) to this tight coupling between a specific routing protocol > and network configuration led to the split of HNCP as a standalone > protocol first defined in draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00. > > Later, DNCP (generic aspects of HNCP concerning synchronization of > state among a set of nodes using Trickle[RFC6206]) were split from the > main HNCP document to allow for modularity and potential reuse. After > this final split, the HNCP document describes the HOMENET-specific > TLVs and the DNCP profile used to synchronize them across the home > network. > > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? > > The reference “hnetd” implementation is at > https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd/ (project homepage at > http://www.homewrt.org/doku.php). > > There is a second (fully independent and interoperable) implementation > available at https://github.com/jech/shncpd developed entirely from > the specification documents without referal to the reference > implementation. > > There is a partial third implementation, though not fully independent, > available here: https://github.com/fingon/pysyma > > > Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? > > > The reference implementation has been a part of routing feed of > OpenWrt since Barrier Breaker (14.07) release in July, 2014. > > Google Nest, Comcast Xfinity, D-Link, Freebox, Technicolor, and Cisco > have all expressed interest in implementing and/or shipping HNCP. HNCP > is referenced in version 1.0 of the Thread Specification (Nest, > Samsung, etc.) > > “Homenet” running either the early OSPF version and later HNCP (with > DNCP) has been demonstrated publicly at 9 IETF BnB events (every BnB > since BnB began, plus at least one “pre BnB” event), HNCP split off > from OSPF has been demontrated at the last 5 IETF BnB events. In > addition to IETF, Homenet Implementations have been presented at: > > 3 IPv6 World Congress events in Paris > 1 CES Event in Las Vegas > 1 Cablelabs Meeting in Denver, Co > > Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a > thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a > MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course > (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the > request posted? > > Thomas Clausen provided an exhaustive review on behalf of Routing Area > resulting in a number of changes to the document. Review (and coding > effort) by Juliusz Chroboczek indicated that a second interoperable > implementation was doable, and he provided only some minor > clarifications that were incorporated later on. A number of other > people have also reviewed the document. > > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? > > Mark Townsley > > Who is the Responsible Area Director? > > Terry Manderson > > RFC-Editor Note > > It would be helpful if this document was clustered with the > publication of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-12 > > IANA Note > > Document requests one IANA registry for TLV-types with action “RFC > required”, > initial contents and policies are given. Furthermore allocation of two > UDP ports and a well-known IPv6 link-local multicast group are > requested, the purpose of the allocation is mentioned. > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > home...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel