Re: [homenet] Working Group draft adoptions
Hi, Please see my responses in line. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: Hi Daniel, - the architecture document describes how to outsource DNS zone outside the home network to any third party by re-using only existing standardized protocols. - the DHCP options ease the configuration of outsourcing DNS architecture up to zero-config. As I mentioned previously, I'd be more comfortable if you could convince us that the proposed protocol supports separating the IHAS from the CPE, and explain how it works when there are multiple CPEs on a single homenet. We have taken your comments into account. Slide 6 of the presentation [1] during the Toronto meeting states that we will clarify this in the next version of the draft. It has also been requested some clarification about the Public Authoritative Server, that the architecture is compatible with multiple ISPs, and privacy implications of publishing names on the internet. They will also be part of the next version. [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-homenet-5.pdf I'd also be grateful if you could provide use cases, since you stated that you believe that my use cases are out of scope (my mail of 5 July 2014, Message-ID 87vbrcydr9.wl@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr). Unless I misunderstand the comment, our use case is: outsourcing the DNS service of your homenet to a dedicated infrastructure. Working code would make everyone happier, of course. Of course, we think the protocols are now mature enough to have it, and we should be able to have one soon. In the current situation, I'm opposed to making these two into WG documents. -- Juliusz -- Daniel Migault Orange Labs -- Security +33 6 70 72 69 58 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Working Group draft adoptions
On 10 Sep 2014, at 15:48, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: Perhaps it's worth delaying the discussion about promoting these to WG status until after you publish the next version, then? No, we're discussing them now. Drafts are neither expected nor required to be fully mature before WG adoption. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Source Address Dependent Routing - draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-00
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: I’ve heard it said over and over in HOMENET sessions that we weren’t going to put new requirements on the host stacks. Why is this draft interesting? HOMENET doesn't require new host stack functionality. What part of the draft makes you think that it does? However, if you want to be MIF compliant, then you need new host stack functionality. This is however not driven by HOMENET. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Source Address Dependent Routing - draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-00
On Sep 10, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: I’ve heard it said over and over in HOMENET sessions that we weren’t going to put new requirements on the host stacks. Why is this draft interesting? HOMENET doesn't require new host stack functionality. What part of the draft makes you think that it does? However, if you want to be MIF compliant, then you need new host stack functionality. This is however not driven by HOMENET. My point was the even if this draft is accepted by 6MAN, standardized, and even implemented some day, it doesn’t satisfy the HOMENET multi-homed routing requirement. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Source Address Dependent Routing - draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-00
On 9/10/14 11:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: My point was the even if this draft is accepted by 6MAN, standardized, and even implemented some day, it doesn’t satisfy the HOMENET multi-homed routing requirement. I don't get it. Could you please be more elaborate? The 2nd paragraph of Section 4 says: The solution should start with the correct configuration of the host. The host should be configured with the next hop addresses and the prefixes supported in these next hops. This way the host having received many prefixes will have the correct knowledge in selecting the right source address and next hop when sending packets to remote destinations. That sounds like new functionality on the host. Not sure if that is what caught Acee's attention, though. Regards, Brian ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
