Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Michael Richardson]

sf> Sure, and as I said I'm not opposed to that. I suspect the
sf> best thing is for the authors to chat with our AD and see
sf> if he's either willing to AD-sponsor it, or to ask another
sf> WG to adopt, or try find a dispatch-like process to see if
sf> enough interest/review can be found that way.

It's the WG's document, and the WG can abandon it if it likes.
That would require some consensus seeking discussing.

If it turns out the WG isn't interested in the document, I sure wish that the
WG had said so a year ago though.

--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
   Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide






signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Daniel Migault]

Hi Stephen,

I am just replying to clarify I am not complaining about you personally or
even your review. If further discussions are needed I am happy to set a
call at any time as email does not seem to me the most constructive path.

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Stephen Farrell 
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 08/06/2021 14:55, Daniel Migault wrote:
> > I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNS
> > is a side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time.
>
> Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
>

Let me try to provide more background. I am reading or interpreting your
response to Ray (quoted below) that the discussion on whether the proposal
will take over DDNS is a simple discussion that does not have any
consequences. I disagree with that. It seems that raising such discussion
during a WGLC has consequences, perhaps because I do not see the technical
aspect of the discussion.

"""
It was one amongst a bunch of personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy
to discuss with the authors without wearing any chair or other hat.
"""

>
> > If I
> > interpret the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.
>
> No. It's me being critical of the text. I neither support
> nor oppose this stuff, but the arguments presented for that
> part aren't convincing IMO, which is what my comment said.
>

The lack of support appeared to me in the WGLC quoted below which mentions
"not enough support". I interpreted this as partly resulting from
challenging the proposal but maybe I am mis-interpreting this, though I
understand it also included partly a number of reviews.

"""
Stephen and I do not believe these drafts have received enough review or
support to put them forward as representing WG consensus.
"""

If I interprete "neither support nor oppose" of your response as being
neutral, I do have hard time to read it from the WGLC report which describe
your position as follows:

"""
Stephen and Juliusz expressed that they're still not convinced that DDNS
isn't a good enough solution for the use case.
"""

That said, I am fine that there are different opinions and people have
different predictions, as long as we agree these remain personal opinions
that should not influence moving the document forward. This is not clear to
me this is the way it is interpreted.


> >
> > Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong (
> > "we will never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason
> > anyone would want a computer in their home"... the list can be as
> > long as we wish). It should not be considered in the decision to move
> > the document forward. Will it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more
> > than Stephen or Juliusz. I am happy to have this discussion in 2
> > years. Today it gives a toxic tone to the discussion.
>
> Toxic? That's seems quite overblown. And plain wrong, if
> you mean it to describe my review. I can understand the
> frustration of working on something like this and not
> seeing it progress as planned, but accusing me of creating
> toxicity is not a fair accusation for you to make.
>
> I am not accusing anyone. The discussion is toxic in my point of view
because at this point it is very hard to engage someone into reviewing the
doc, as it is asking him to take a position in favor of or against some
parties. I do not believe that this results from your review, but rather
how your review has been summarized and has influenced the chair's
decision. Reviews are always welcome.


> > I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how
> > many reviews would have been considered sufficient.
>
> Oh come on - we've tried a number of times to get people
> to review these documents and we've never really gotten
> that to happen. The level of review is nowhere near
> sufficient to declare some meaningful WG consensus.
>

The question concerned the number of reviews that would have been
considered sufficient. I do not understand how this can be interpreted as
chairs not making enough effort to get reviews. It was not my intent. That
said, I remember that people committed to review, and maybe a reminder
would have been welcome.


>
> > Looking at the
> > homenet mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects
> > the participation of the mailing list.
>
> That's true. I think it may be time to recognise reality
> and close the WG perhaps.
>
>
I do not think that was not predictable, nor something that we learned
during this WGLC. If we had some other specific expectations, those should
have been clearly provided. And it is still unclear to me how many reviews
were expected for example.


> > Though I really value your
> > review, I am not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages
> > additional reviews, as it forces the potential reviewer to take
> > position against the opinion of the chair. It seems to me that, if
> > the number of reviews were an issue, this could have been addressed
> > otherwise.
>
> Sorry, 

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Michael Richardson]

Juliusz Chroboczek  wrote:
> Michael, it would probably take you 20 minutes to write up an I-D
> describing a reasonable REST-based DDNS protocol, another 5 minutes to
> write a client implementation in Javascript, and one hour to write
> a robust server that is well integrated with Bind.

Yes, I did that.  It's in front of you.
As you said, there are three different specifications: why didn't you pick one?

We went back and forth multiple times as to REST vs AXFR from the HNA.
The feedback *FROM DNS OPERATORS* (which you aren't) was that they preferred 
AXFR.

>> If the device renumbers, or experiences a flash renumbering, how does it
>> know to re-register?

> All of these are interesting issues.  However, I don't see how they depend
> on whether the update is carried over HTTPS or AXFR.

It sure does, because DDNS as described by you is done by the end-device,
which can't see the IPv4 renumber, which btw, is all those devices support.

--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
   Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

On 08/06/2021 14:55, Daniel Migault wrote:

I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNS
is a side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time. 


Sorry, I don't get what you mean.


If I
interpret the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.


No. It's me being critical of the text. I neither support
nor oppose this stuff, but the arguments presented for that
part aren't convincing IMO, which is what my comment said.



Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong (
"we will never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason
anyone would want a computer in their home"... the list can be as
long as we wish). It should not be considered in the decision to move
the document forward. Will it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more
than Stephen or Juliusz. I am happy to have this discussion in 2
years. Today it gives a toxic tone to the discussion.


Toxic? That's seems quite overblown. And plain wrong, if
you mean it to describe my review. I can understand the
frustration of working on something like this and not
seeing it progress as planned, but accusing me of creating
toxicity is not a fair accusation for you to make.


I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how
many reviews would have been considered sufficient.


Oh come on - we've tried a number of times to get people
to review these documents and we've never really gotten
that to happen. The level of review is nowhere near
sufficient to declare some meaningful WG consensus.


Looking at the
homenet mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects
the participation of the mailing list.


That's true. I think it may be time to recognise reality
and close the WG perhaps.


Though I really value your
review, I am not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages
additional reviews, as it forces the potential reviewer to take
position against the opinion of the chair. It seems to me that, if
the number of reviews were an issue, this could have been addressed
otherwise.


Sorry, that doesn't make sense. As chair I wouldn't ask
for it to be published without doing my own personal review.
And I refuse to guarantee all such reviews will be positive.


From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and
technical

comments have been addressed.


Personally, I don't agree. As chair, I think it's moot,
as we don't have sufficient review to declare consensus
either way. (To be clear - the DDNS point is also moot
in terms of whether or not the technical comments have
been handled - that was a non-nit editorial point.)


Regarding the support, the proposal was initiated by an ISP. Today, I
am interested in this proposal because we have some demand for it.
That some folks prefer using DDNS for their own purpose is orthogonal
to us. This is why we want it to be published.


Sure, and as I said I'm not opposed to that. I suspect the
best thing is for the authors to chat with our AD and see
if he's either willing to AD-sponsor it, or to ask another
WG to adopt, or try find a dispatch-like process to see if
enough interest/review can be found that way.

Cheers,
S.




Yours, Daniel

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell
 wrote:



Hiya,

On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:


Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.

So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF
standardization process must also produce drafts that are very
likely to gain traction to displace non-IETF non-standardised
products that are already widely commercially deployed?


No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst a bunch of
personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy to discuss with the
authors without wearing any chair or other hat.

The process problem with these drafts is the lack of review means
there's no way to claim they represent any useful level of WG
consensus.

Cheers, S.

___ homenet mailing
list homenet@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet







OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Daniel Migault]

I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNS is a
side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time. If I interpret
the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.

Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong ( "we will
never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home"... the list can be as long as we wish). It
should not be considered in the decision to move the document forward. Will
it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more than Stephen or Juliusz. I am
happy to have this discussion in 2 years. Today it gives a toxic tone to
the discussion.

I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how many
reviews would have been considered sufficient. Looking at the homenet
mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects the
participation of the mailing list. Though I really value your review, I am
not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages additional reviews, as it
forces the potential reviewer to take position against the opinion of the
chair. It seems to me that, if the number of reviews were an issue, this
could have been addressed otherwise.

>From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and technical
comments have been addressed.

Regarding the support, the proposal was initiated by an ISP. Today, I am
interested in this proposal because we have some demand for it. That some
folks prefer using DDNS for their own purpose is orthogonal to us. This is
why we want it to be published.

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell 
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:
> >
> > Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.
> >
> > So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization
> > process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction
> > to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely
> > commercially deployed?
>
> No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst
> a bunch of personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy
> to discuss with the authors without wearing any chair
> or other hat.
>
> The process problem with these drafts is the lack of
> review means there's no way to claim they represent any
> useful level of WG consensus.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> ___
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/7JmkTCBSSMs5nnH3VWPj6JAL0cA/

> I didn't find any clear definition of how DDNS works in that email.

[...]
> What's the Performance Specification that describes this process?  Yes,
> I know where the vendor specific documentation is.

As far as I'm aware, all the REST-like DDNS protocols are vendor-specific.
However, they are widely deployed.  To give a data point, the ISP-provided
CPE I'm using right now implements no less than three distinct vendor
protocols for name registration (disabled by default, thankfully).

Michael, it would probably take you 20 minutes to write up an I-D
describing a reasonable REST-based DDNS protocol, another 5 minutes to
write a client implementation in Javascript, and one hour to write
a robust server that is well integrated with Bind.

> Second, how are the credentials for that communication established?
> [...]  What name does your NAS pick?  [...] Once the 14 year old in the
> house does this, how does the parent find out about the name that was
> used?

[...]

> If the device renumbers, or experiences a flash renumbering, how does it
> know to re-register?

All of these are interesting issues.  However, I don't see how they depend
on whether the update is carried over HTTPS or AXFR.

-- Juliusz

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:


Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.

So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization 
process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction 
to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely 
commercially deployed?


No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst
a bunch of personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy
to discuss with the authors without wearing any chair
or other hat.

The process problem with these drafts is the lack of
review means there's no way to claim they represent any
useful level of WG consensus.

Cheers,
S.



OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Ray Hunter (v6ops)]

Stephen Farrell wrote on 07/06/2021 21:32:


Hi Michael,

On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote:

Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to
actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them.


Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than
the proposal here, rather I don't find the arguments as to
why this is "better" convincing, and so, given that DDNS is
deployed, and has some similarity, I'm wondering if this
spec really has much of a chance at gaining traction.

As a result, I don't really think there's that much value
in attempting a point-scoring exercise comparing the two,
the question for me is really whether or not this spec is
so much better than DDNS that it could displace DDNS, and
I'm not convinced as of now. (But I'm often wrong of course.)

Cheers,
S.


___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet


Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.

So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization 
process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction 
to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely 
commercially deployed?


If that is the case, then perhaps the WG should have steered the draft 
to have been "DDNS, but standardised" or "a TR-069 compatible interface 
for DNS zone delegation".


--
regards,
RayH

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet