[Changing the subject header to better reflect the current discussion]
Stephen, I agree with you: let's continue this thread about homenet WG
continuation until mid-September.
To be honest, I am wondering whether there is WG momentum as only active IETF
drafts authors are replying to this thread. Let's hope that the change of
Subject will trigger more vivid reactions.
Regards
-éric
PS: I am pretty sure that the 'stub network' I-D could find another home
-----Original Message-----
From: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 17:41
To: Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Hiya,
On 31/08/2021 15:53, Daniel Migault wrote:
> I also support that homenet work being made in homenet. It is unclear to
me
> why we are looking at an alternate way to proceed.
From my POV, mostly because, as co-chair, it's very hard
to be confident that we have sufficient participation to
usefully claim WG consensus for the (good) work being done
when we put that forward for e.g. IETF LC.
As a WG, we're suffering from lack of input and at some
point (and now being a good point) we should consider whether
or not the WG is still tractable or not.
Cheers,
S.
PS: As it's still just about vacation season, I figure
it makes sense to let this discussion go on for another
week or two, so if someone hasn't yet chimed in, it's
still a fine time to do that!
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:05 AM Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca>
wrote:
>
>>
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> >> progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing
>> >> dnssd work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to
>> progress
>> >> that draft /somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for
dnssd. It
>> >> could go in v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with
>> >> intarea.
>>
>> >> But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set
out
>> to
>> >> do. It's just a building block that might lead there. The
original
>> >> work of homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market,
and I
>> >> think it's because we didn't have an adoption strategy.
Personally I
>> >> think stub networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy
that
>> >> could ultimately produce an adoptable version of what we
originally
>> >> tried to do. But again, only if people here want to pursue that.
>>
>> > I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document.
I
>> > agree that it's an important document.
>>
>> If we need to keep HOMENET open to do stub networks, then let's do that.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
