Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Dear all, Even if the Homenet WG will probably close in the coming months, I am adding a third chair to the WG (planning for Barbara's departure from her active role) and am happy to announce that Kiran Makhijani has accepted to take the position of the 3rd chair. So, please welcome her ;-) Welcome Kiran ! -éric ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
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 wrote: Michael Richardson 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 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] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
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. Yours, Daniel On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:05 AM Michael Richardson wrote: > > Michael Richardson 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 > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
> FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do. We > now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting it up > will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented. That would be RFC 9080. It's fully implemented in both hnetd and shncpd. -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do. We now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting it up will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented. And we might be getting close to ready to talk about how to integrate the dnssd naming work into a HomeNet. On August 27, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM, Michael Richardson (m...@sandelman.ca) wrote: Michael Richardson 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
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Michael Richardson 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Ted Lemon 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. -- 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] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
I think it's pretty clear that there's more work to do; the question is whether the homenet working group has a quorum to do it. A fair amount of the work we were trying to do in homenet has wound up happening in dnssd instead, which seems fine—there was a pretty clear overlap there. There is still work to do that I think is homenet-relevant, but only if there are people in homenet who want to do it. I haven't had time to 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. On August 24, 2021 at 8:37:24 PM, Stephen Farrell (stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie) wrote: Hiya, On 24/08/2021 08:59, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Dear all, > > As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG > chair position after IETF-112 I'd also like to thank Barbara for all her fine work for this WG, and everything else in IETF-land too! > and I now have ‘mission impossible n++’ > to find a new WG chair to assist Stephen Farrel. > > As Stephen is an experimented WG chair, having a ‘junior’ co-chair > would be welcome (of course ‘senior’ as well!), i.e., even if you are > new at the IETF and if you have never been a WG chair, then feel free > to reply unicast[1] to me: we can then have a chat about the job and > the motivation. The job itself is not a big chunk of time outside the > IETF weeks but requires human skills (herding cats !) and of course > good technical knowledge. > > Looking forward to reading your email about you or about any > suggestion So, (having checked with Eric and Barbara) I'd also like to know whether (or not) participants consider that the homenet WG may now have reached the time when it's more appropriate to close the WG. That might (or might not) make a search for a new co-chair moot. If closing the WG were the better option then we'd want to have a discussion about how to handle ongoing work (e.g. see if there's a better venue), but that's a separate discussion. Cheers, S. PS: FWIW, I'd be just as happy if there's consensus to continue or to call it a day - either is a fine outcome if it matches reality. > > Regards > > -éric > > [1] unicast is preferred but not required > ___ 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
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Hiya, On 24/08/2021 08:59, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Dear all, As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG chair position after IETF-112 I'd also like to thank Barbara for all her fine work for this WG, and everything else in IETF-land too! and I now have ‘mission impossible n++’ to find a new WG chair to assist Stephen Farrel. As Stephen is an experimented WG chair, having a ‘junior’ co-chair would be welcome (of course ‘senior’ as well!), i.e., even if you are new at the IETF and if you have never been a WG chair, then feel free to reply unicast[1] to me: we can then have a chat about the job and the motivation. The job itself is not a big chunk of time outside the IETF weeks but requires human skills (herding cats !) and of course good technical knowledge. Looking forward to reading your email about you or about any suggestion So, (having checked with Eric and Barbara) I'd also like to know whether (or not) participants consider that the homenet WG may now have reached the time when it's more appropriate to close the WG. That might (or might not) make a search for a new co-chair moot. If closing the WG were the better option then we'd want to have a discussion about how to handle ongoing work (e.g. see if there's a better venue), but that's a separate discussion. Cheers, S. PS: FWIW, I'd be just as happy if there's consensus to continue or to call it a day - either is a fine outcome if it matches reality. Regards -éric [1] unicast is preferred but not required 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
[homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Dear all, As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG chair position after IETF-112 and I now have ‘mission impossible n++’ to find a new WG chair to assist Stephen Farrel. As Stephen is an experimented WG chair, having a ‘junior’ co-chair would be welcome (of course ‘senior’ as well!), i.e., even if you are new at the IETF and if you have never been a WG chair, then feel free to reply unicast[1] to me: we can then have a chat about the job and the motivation. The job itself is not a big chunk of time outside the IETF weeks but requires human skills (herding cats !) and of course good technical knowledge. Looking forward to reading your email about you or about any suggestion Regards -éric [1] unicast is preferred but not required ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
