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 (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
