Re: [homenet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25

. https://github.com/ietf-homenet-wg/ietf-homenet-hna/pull/62/commits/cbf182af1bf749f09348a178268d62b745c3d6d6 You can also find some more description / comments inline. Thanks for the follow-up! Yours, Daniel On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:28 AM Tim Chown mailto:tim.ch...@jisc.ac.uk>> wro

Re: [homenet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25

, Daniel On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:12 AM Tim Chown via Datatracker mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Almost Ready Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by th

Re: [homenet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25

r. Even if a little too late for the IESG telechat, I am sure that the authors will take your review in consideration. I personally like your suggestion to add an appendix section on the deployment/operation timeline. Regards -éric On 05/01/2023, 16:12, "Tim Chown via Datatracker" m

Re: [homenet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25

gards -éric On 05/01/2023, 16:12, "Tim Chown via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Almost Ready Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being

[homenet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-25

Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Almost Ready Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts

Re: [homenet] standard way of configuring homenets

On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:13, Ted Lemon mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: Well, the charter certainly says that we're supposed to think about homenet's impact on manageability. Granted, that's a thin reed to hang on, and it would probably be better to make the charter more explicit. But to be

[homenet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06

Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Has Nits Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> On 11 Aug 2017, at 17:53, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ted Lemon wrote: >> Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution. Having >> chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the >> problem that one provider

Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi, On the principle of the WG agreeing to work on the problems as itemised in the current headings in the table of contents, I support adoption, i.e., it’s something homenet should work on, but it’s quite possible that the draft when it moves to WGLC may look somewhat different. Someone

Re: [homenet] A TOFU approach to naming things in the homenet (with code!)

> On 30 Jun 2017, at 10:14, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > >> Ted Lemon writes: >> >>> I think it would be worth presenting your work, yes. In addition to this, >>> I've >>> been working with Stuart Cheshire

Re: [homenet] Understanding DNS-SD hybrid proxying [was: Firewall hole punching]

On 23 Nov 2016, at 19:45, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: - ohybridproxy (only really scalable and sensible IPv6 rdns source that I am aware of, given nodes talk mdns) Noted, thanks for the opinion. I still don't understand how it works (who gets port 53? how are

Re: [homenet] Firewall hole punching [was: About Ted's naming architecture...]

On 23 Nov 2016, at 15:23, Ca By > wrote: That said, given HOMENET's charter to be the ideal network we always wanted without the technical debt, i suggest HOMENET take a strong stance and reject "crunchy core, soft middle" security approach.

Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document

On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:34, james woodyatt > wrote: On Nov 16, 2016, at 17:31, Michael Richardson > wrote: But, do you agree that publishing your home lighting controller to the DNS is how you manage to

[homenet] .home leakage

Hi, For info, here’s the Version report on .home (and other) leakage: http://techreports.verisignlabs.com/docs/tr-1130008-1.pdf Though having heard Stuart’s comments, I’m in agreement with those. Tim ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

Re: [homenet] write up of time without clocks

Hi, On 4 Nov 2016, at 08:34, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: Exactly. Same as we have regulations like UL, FCC, EC, etc., the same certifications must care about a minimum set of security, upgradeability, etc., features. So the

Re: [homenet] Naming: a strawman counter-proposal

On 20 Jul 2016, at 14:27, Ted Lemon > wrote: This proposal doesn't satisfy the problem statement. (which nobody wrote. :) I don't want to tube on writing a formal requirements doc before we finish doing a naming architecture, but I think now that I've

Re: [homenet] My comment about Ted's naming draft

Hi, On 18 Jul 2016, at 23:51, Ted Lemon > wrote: I think it's should in the sense that there may be done reason not to do it on some case and we don't want to preclude that because there is no protocol reason to do so, but we expect that it will be

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and ".home"

Hi Ted, On 18 Jul 2016, at 15:03, Ted Lemon > wrote: Zero. See the discussion in draft-tldr-sutld-02 on this topic (search for .home). I don’t see “home” explicitly cited in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-02, but it’s an

[homenet] use of .home

Hi, I was going to say two things at the mic before we ran out of time. First, that I agree with Ralph on his comments about requirements. Second, as Stuart pointed out, use is already being made of .home, e.g. it’s used by BT in the UK. There are articles online that suggest 500M hits/day to

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Hi Ray, On 11 May 2016, at 15:01, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <v6...@globis.net<mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com<mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j..

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Hi, > On 5 May 2016, at 13:37, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > >>> We can and should. The problem is that we won't see that code ship in >>> new devices anytime soon, so we still have to make mDNS work. > >> And this is why the dnssd WG is focused on making mDNS

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

> On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > > > wrote: > > Juliusz, the problem is that existing home network devices that do > > DNS-based

Re: [homenet] The minimal Babel profile for Homenet

On 28 Oct 2015, at 13:07, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >>> (2) SHOULD RFC 6126, IPv4 subset; > >> Why not MUST? [...] I don't think the prodding should be done by causing >> unnecessary pain for average consumers. > > Fully agreed, but I'm not sure what is the

Re: [homenet] Despair

On 5 Aug 2015, at 13:34, Ray Bellis r...@bellis.me.uk wrote: On 05/08/2015 12:44, Dave Taht wrote: I would like to require the design team *to actually install the software*. Dave, We've heard you before, but with the best will in the world we cannot *require* IETF volunteers to

Re: [homenet] HNCP, RA and DHCPv4

Hi, On 27 Jul 2015, at 14:58, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: snip Renumbering is not as smooth -- it appears to be impossible to remove a set of addresses wholesale, retracting a set of PIOs merely causes the old addresses to become deprecated. Since after a

Re: [homenet] some IS-IS questions

On 28 Jul 2015, at 21:21, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: This means that the end user can be assumed to plug home routers together in arbitrary topologies, [..] Our goal is for this to work in a multihomed IPv6

Re: [homenet] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-07.txt

Hi, On 9 Jul 2015, at 16:35, Ray Bellis r...@bellis.me.uk wrote: On 09/07/2015 16:28, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: It is very hard to find a wording for this that everyone agrees with. Yes. For now it was changed to “DNCP is an abstract protocol, that must be combined with a specific

Re: [homenet] homenet requirements on ISPs -- should write them down?

Hi, On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:01, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: This WG has been chartered to address networking issues in the home. In the process of doing this we have made various assumptions about what ISPs might (or might not) provide. These have mostly been aligned

Re: [homenet] Orchestration of renumbering

On 25 Mar 2015, at 02:01, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote: On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Make-before-break renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but

Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison

On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote: it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC. protocol design is politics. we want to make it clear to the address delegation authorities that not delegating a large enough address block will lead to breakage.

Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison

On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote: Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in situations where they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily prevent a link from being configured if we actually can configure it ? If MUSTs are the

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:59, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: I guess that's kind of what I've been getting at: should we capture all of this in a threats document? I'm a little uncomfortable with the formality, but I'm even

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

On 16 Sep 2014, at 14:52, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: I think that we can assume that wired links are secure. The only time we care if wireless is secured is when we want to form an adjacency over the wireless link. I think it is acceptable to refuse to form an

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

that (what Ray describes are general principles). I’m talking with Ted and the chairs on the approach to take. Expect news soon :) Tim On 14 Jun 2014, at 14:44, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:57, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com mailto:mel

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Hi, On 17 Jun 2014, at 18:48, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 6/17/14, 10:38 AM, ietfdbh wrote: -Original Message- From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu [...] I suppose parents will likely ask the IPv6 specialists something like

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:38, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: No, the problem is that the working group doesn't know what is being asked for. We could go around on this all week… I must say as the editor of the arch

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 12 Jun 2014, at 23:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: I will attempt to read the diffs; but... It Just Doesn't Mattertm better is the enemy of good enough, and it was good enough a year ago. Well… :) The last few months have basically been about bashing through a list of

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:57, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shouldn't take long for you to type.

Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet

On 1 Jun 2014, at 13:38, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote: Hi, Op 1 jun. 2014, om 12:50 heeft Gert Doering g...@space.net het volgende geschreven: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:47:03AM +0200, Pierre Pfister wrote: So even if most will agree that supporting multiple routing protocol

[homenet] New arch text: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-12.txt

Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles Authors : Tim Chown Jari Arkko

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

On 19 Sep 2013, at 14:24, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:59 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: The Chairs have already agreed about the five topics to be covered. It's not a problem. The next step would be to take these

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:59, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: At 16:10 18-09-2013, Tim Chown wrote: There is already a split namespace for existing home networks. Devices may live under .local (for mDNS/DNS-SD), which has meaning on the subnet in question (though some emerging vendor

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

On 19 Sep 2013, at 20:43, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:36 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: I agree that it would be good for the working group to evolve the document (see my previous comments about stabilizing the document and having a discussion

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

On 20 Sep 2013, at 16:08, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 9/20/13 8:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: I believe the draft meets the charter goals. It's certainly a snapshot, and should be labelled as such, but it isn't intended to stray much outside layer 3, and shouldn't. Whether work is

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10.txt

, at 17:23, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF. Title : Home Networking Architecture for IPv6 Author(s) : Tim

Re: [homenet] New draft - draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00

On 22 Jul 2013, at 10:01, Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) shwet...@cisco.com wrote: Hello, A new draft draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00 describing a method for applications to learn and influence source address selection by associating IPv6 prefixes with meta-data when configured by

Re: [homenet] section 3.6.3

On 18 Jun 2013, at 02:08, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Yeah, I haven't actually tried listening on port 80 on my android when I happen to be on v6 and seeing if it's walled off. I was hoping that lazywebs would help me out here. *If* phones are not walled off now, I have no

Re: [homenet] IETF 87 - call for agenda items

On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:59, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: I would like the WG to spend some face time dealing with (making a list of), things that need to be configured, which are not routes. (So, I

Re: [homenet] draft-boutier-homenet-source-specific-routing-00

On 5 Jul 2013, at 09:10, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: With the exception of the text on babel, a lot of the material you wrote is already covered there. Your draft covers what we

[homenet] Fwd: Draft submission deadlines change

Begin forwarded message: From: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org Subject: Draft submission deadlines change Date: 3 July 2013 06:17:01 BST To: IETF Announcement List ietf-annou...@ietf.org Reply-To: i...@ietf.org Please note that for IETF 87, there is only one deadline for draft submission:

Re: [homenet] Source-specific routes in Linux [was: atomic updates...]

On 8 May 2013, at 10:45, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On 7 May 2013, at 12:08, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote: Yet another implementation of interest might be: https://github.com/edderick

[homenet] New revision of homenet arch doc

Hi, A new revision of the homenet arch doc is almost done. We hope to push it out over the weekend. So if you have any burning issues you feel haven't been raised, now would be a good time to air them. Thanks, Tim ___ homenet mailing list

Re: [homenet] homenet-arch review (delegated ISP prefixes)

- From: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:56 AM To: v6...@ietf.org v6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:07, Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote: [jjmb] incorrect I have

Re: [homenet] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07

Hi Ray, Thanks as ever for the comments, which I have integrated and commented on below On 23 Feb 2013, at 18:40, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote: As requested I have read draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07. Thanks everyone for the effort so far. IMHO I think the document is in very good

Re: [homenet] last call comments on section 3.7

Comments in line... On 28 Feb 2013, at 22:09, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: In general, I do not think this is ready to go. From what I can see, there is a significant amount of disagreement about whether mdns and/or sd have a place in the homenet architecture, and more than a little

Re: [homenet] last call comments on section 3.7

On 13 Mar 2013, at 03:32, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: I'm curious as to why Michael's comments garnered only a single reply—I think he raised some good points. The question is whether no one agrees. There have been previous comments that the text both in this section and in general

Re: [homenet] last call comments on section 3.7

On 13 Mar 2013, at 18:41, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 11:28 AM, Tim Chown wrote: On 13 Mar 2013, at 03:32, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: I'm curious as to why Michael's comments garnered only a single reply—I think he raised some good points. The question

Re: [homenet] Why do homenets need SD? (was: last call comments on section 3.7)

On 13 Mar 2013, at 19:24, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 11:20 AM, Tim Chown wrote: 3.7.1 Service Discovery This section starts out with telling us how it will be presented to the user (GUI) without any reference to why a user or anything else needs service

Re: [homenet] Scope of Work: broken kit deployments out-of-scope

On 11 Mar 2013, at 12:45, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:31 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: That doesn't give the option to the server, though... the client has to ask for one or the other. What I would suggest is that if the client doesn't get a big

Re: [homenet] ISP-delegated IPv6 prefixes (3.4.1) in draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07

On 9 Mar 2013, at 02:05, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: STARK, == STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com writes: STARK Switching ISPs is not an option at this time. This is the STARK only provider who offers something close to 30Mbps at a STARK consumer-friendly price.

Re: [homenet] Next steps for draft-behringer-homenet-trust-bootstrap?

On 5 Mar 2013, at 17:52, Michael Behringer (mbehring) mbehr...@cisco.com wrote: Our draft shows a way to do that in a relatively simple and secure way. I believe this is a fundamental requirement in a homenet; there are other ways to more or less achieve this goal - that needs to be

Re: [homenet] Scope of Work: broken kit deployments out-of-scope

do. OK, thanks, but presumably the ISP wouldn't hand out such additional prefixes indefinitely? The question is whether the arch text should say if you don't get a big enough prefix, before entering some error state, try asking for more...? Tim On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tim Chown

Re: [homenet] isp's as namespace providers

On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:12, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 02:01 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Why is it likely? This can very easily be rewritten to be agnostic as to who provides a global naming service for a homenet.

Re: [homenet] namespaces

On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:24, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 01:55 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: The reason I bring this up is that I don't understand why a single namespace is desirable. What are the implications if that

Re: [homenet] will CER's be globally authoritative resolvers?

On 13 Mar 2013, at 22:49, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 03:39 PM, Don Sturek wrote: Hi Mike, I think disconnected use is a MUST and not aspirational. I would not want my networked printer to stop working, my smart appliances to not be able to read my meter, etc. all

Re: [homenet] Why do homenets need SD?

On 13 Mar 2013, at 23:47, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/13/2013 03:18 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:13, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: I don't have any statistics but it wouldn't shock me to hear

Re: [homenet] [v6ops] new draft: draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt

for connecting provider B and having a period of transition with dual prefixes. This possibility should be considered and addressed, IMHO. Thanks for the comments. I've added that into the WGLC feedback list. Tim Owen On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07.txt

-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF. Title : Home Networking Architecture for IPv6 Author(s) : Tim Chown Jari Arkko Anders Brandt

[homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-arch

Hi, A new -07 version of draft-ietf-homenet-arch will be published over the weekend to incorporate comments made to date on the current version. If you have any specific (especially new) comments to make on that current version, now would be a good time to do so. For the current version

Re: [homenet] Revised Homenet Agenda (again)

draft-chown-homenet-arch-06 (Tim Chown - 15m) To be clear, that's draft-ietf-homenet-arch-06. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-06 tim 09:25 - 10:10 Security and Border Discovery 9:25 draft-kline-default-perimeter-01

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00

On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:54, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote: On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:50, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: It can't deprecate it, but it can say that NPT66 is not supported in the homenet architecture. Indeed. We can capture those sentiments in -07, and

Re: [homenet] service announcement vs service discovery

Hi Mike, Thanks for the comments. On 19 Oct 2012, at 18:16, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote: We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most substantial changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section (3.7), so if you

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-05.txt

: Home Networking Architecture for IPv6 Author(s) : Tim Chown Jari Arkko Anders Brandt Ole Troan Jason Weil Filename: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-05.txt Pages : 43 Date

[homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-arch-06.txt

of the IETF. Title : Home Networking Architecture for IPv6 Author(s) : Tim Chown Jari Arkko Anders Brandt Ole Troan Jason Weil Filename: draft-ietf

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-05.txt

) : Tim Chown Jari Arkko Anders Brandt Ole Troan Jason Weil Filename: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-05.txt Pages : 43 Date: 2012-10-19 Abstract

Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-arch-04

On 1 Oct 2012, at 13:59, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com wrote: Consumer oriented providers handing out /64s to home nets is also bad. Agreed (s/consumer-oriented/any/). HomeNet WG ought to be VERY clear about this. HomeNet WG ALSO ought NOT enable or encourage such behaviour by

Re: [homenet] -03 comments?

On 2 Jul 2012, at 10:23, Ray Bellis wrote: In the heat of the discussion around Olafur's posting on naming, it may have escaped people's notice that Tim posted a -03 revision of our core architecture draft late last week. We'd like to encourage you all to _thoroughly_ review and comment

Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]

On 20 Mar 2012, at 21:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2012-03-20 21:51, Anders Brandt wrote: It is a surprise to me that ULA addresses are not by default routable within the site. I can easily imagine a number of LLN border routers which autonomously allocate different ULA prefixes for

[homenet] Issue tracker

Hi, The chairs have suggested using the issue tracker for the architecture text. These should appear to the list soon. We can split out additional issues with the tracker as they're identified. The naming and service discovery areas are still in their relative infancy. Please feel free to

Re: [homenet] Security goals

On 11 Mar 2012, at 05:28, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Mar 10, 2012 5:05 PM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: a) An assumption of Simple Security with default deny on the CER. This implies PCP or uPnP to support punching holes. The text also talks about addressability vs

Re: [homenet] Framing homenet borders and default policies

The -02 coming soon makes it clear the examples are just that. Tim On 6 Mar 2012, at 20:19, Randy Turner wrote: After a 2nd reading of the current arch doc, I'm still not sure where the bounding box is around our work - seems like the language in section 3 should be tightened up - or

Re: [homenet] Discovery [snmp for monitoring home network]

On 10 Mar 2012, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Cutting to the chase (and this answers Don too): There may be good reasons to consider SLP, but I'd like to see how these line up against the home net goals. Exactly. It's perfectly fine by me if SLP is not the right answer for future

Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Interim Meeting

On 19 Sep 2011, at 22:01, Mark Townsley wrote: Procedurally, the WG can do what it wants to here, there is no official method for declaring a document a WG document. Different WGs operate in very different manners in this regard. What I am suggesting here is that a draft should be