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

2017-08-11 Thread Daniel Migault
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Tim Chown  wrote:

> 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 mentioned that RFC7368 is not cited; it would be useful for this
> draft to clarify where it is compliant, where it is not, and why.
>

I agree. We had multiple discussions for making choices and these should be
clearly stated in the draft. If RFC7368 is not cited in the current version
that is probably we referred to it so many time we forgot to put it. That
will be addressed in the next version for sure.


> Tim
>
> > On 9 Aug 2017, at 22:35, STARK, BARBARA H  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Daniel. And you’re not too late. The call ends this coming
> Friday. So if anyone else wants to chime in, please do. I’ll try to create
> a summary Thursday describing what I think I’ve heard so far. That should
> give everyone a brief chance to tell me how badly I’ve misinterpreted their
> statements before the call ends.
> > Barbara
> >
> > From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Migault
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:37 PM
> > To: Michael Richardson 
> > Cc: homenet@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed
> draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I apology for the late response (I was off for two weeks). I will update
> the draft by the end of the month integrating numerous feed backs we
> received.
> >
> > As a co-author I am supporting the adoption of this document
> architecture. I believe that given the current situation regarding homenet
> and naming, the simple but useful scope of the draft will help the WG to
> move forward regarding naming and home network. I agree the document is not
> yet in a final version and feed back from the WG will be very helpful. That
> said I think, since last IETF, we have a pretty good view on where we are
> going.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson 
> wrote:
> > Ted Lemon  wrote:
> > > to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some
> good
> > > comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point
> that it
> > > would
> > > be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is
> what
> > > I'm
> >
> > We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to
> adopt
> > a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
> > We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents
> too.
> >
> > > That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been
> spinning
> > > our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the
> scope
> > > of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
> > > on. If it's not,
> > > then I don't actually know how to proceed.
> >
> > I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
> > I support adoption.
> >
> > --
> > ]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> > ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network
> architect  [
> > ] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on
> rails[
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet


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

2017-08-11 Thread Tim Chown
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 mentioned that RFC7368 is not cited; it would be useful for this draft 
to clarify where it is compliant, where it is not, and why.

Tim 

> On 9 Aug 2017, at 22:35, STARK, BARBARA H  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Daniel. And you’re not too late. The call ends this coming Friday. So 
> if anyone else wants to chime in, please do. I’ll try to create a summary 
> Thursday describing what I think I’ve heard so far. That should give everyone 
> a brief chance to tell me how badly I’ve misinterpreted their statements 
> before the call ends.
> Barbara
>  
> From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Migault
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:37 PM
> To: Michael Richardson 
> Cc: homenet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed 
> draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
>  
> Hi, 
> 
> I apology for the late response (I was off for two weeks). I will update the 
> draft by the end of the month integrating numerous feed backs we received.
> 
> As a co-author I am supporting the adoption of this document architecture. I 
> believe that given the current situation regarding homenet and naming, the 
> simple but useful scope of the draft will help the WG to move forward 
> regarding naming and home network. I agree the document is not yet in a final 
> version and feed back from the WG will be very helpful. That said I think, 
> since last IETF, we have a pretty good view on where we are going.
> 
> Yours, 
> Daniel
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson  
> wrote:
> Ted Lemon  wrote:
> > to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some good
> > comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that it
> > would
> > be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what
> > I'm
> 
> We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to adopt
> a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
> We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents too.
> 
> > That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning
> > our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope
> > of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
> > on. If it's not,
> > then I don't actually know how to proceed.
> 
> I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
> I support adoption.
> 
> --
> ]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect  [
> ] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on rails
> [
> 
> ___
> 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


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

2017-08-09 Thread STARK, BARBARA H
Thanks Daniel. And you’re not too late. The call ends this coming Friday. So if 
anyone else wants to chime in, please do. I’ll try to create a summary Thursday 
describing what I think I’ve heard so far. That should give everyone a brief 
chance to tell me how badly I’ve misinterpreted their statements before the 
call ends.
Barbara

From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Migault
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:37 PM
To: Michael Richardson 
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed 
draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi,
I apology for the late response (I was off for two weeks). I will update the 
draft by the end of the month integrating numerous feed backs we received.
As a co-author I am supporting the adoption of this document architecture. I 
believe that given the current situation regarding homenet and naming, the 
simple but useful scope of the draft will help the WG to move forward regarding 
naming and home network. I agree the document is not yet in a final version and 
feed back from the WG will be very helpful. That said I think, since last IETF, 
we have a pretty good view on where we are going.
Yours,
Daniel



On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson 
> wrote:
Ted Lemon > wrote:
> to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some good
> comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that it
> would
> be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what
> I'm

We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to adopt
a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents too.

> That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning
> our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope
> of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
> on. If it's not,
> then I don't actually know how to proceed.

I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
I support adoption.

--
]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect  [
] m...@sandelman.ca  
http://www.sandelman.ca/
|   ruby on rails[

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

2017-08-09 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi,

I apology for the late response (I was off for two weeks). I will update
the draft by the end of the month integrating numerous feed backs we
received.

As a co-author I am supporting the adoption of this document architecture.
I believe that given the current situation regarding homenet and naming,
the simple but useful scope of the draft will help the WG to move forward
regarding naming and home network. I agree the document is not yet in a
final version and feed back from the WG will be very helpful. That said I
think, since last IETF, we have a pretty good view on where we are going.

Yours,
Daniel





On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson 
wrote:

> Ted Lemon  wrote:
> > to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some good
> > comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that
> it
> > would
> > be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what
> > I'm
>
> We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to
> adopt
> a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
> We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents
> too.
>
> > That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been
> spinning
> > our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the
> scope
> > of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
> > on. If it's not,
> > then I don't actually know how to proceed.
>
> I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
> I support adoption.
>
> --
> ]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network
> architect  [
> ] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on
> rails[
>
> ___
> 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] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

2017-07-31 Thread Michael Richardson
Ted Lemon  wrote:
> to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some good
> comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that it
> would
> be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what
> I'm

We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to adopt
a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents too.

> That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning
> our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope
> of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
> on. If it's not,
> then I don't actually know how to proceed.

I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
I support adoption.

--
]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect  [
] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on rails[

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


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

2017-07-31 Thread Tim Chown
Hi,

I’d recommend people who are interested in this topic read 
draft-cheshire-dnssd-roadmap-00, which you might miss if just looking at the 
draft-sctl-* drafts.

Tim

> On 31 Jul 2017, at 13:09, Ted Lemon  wrote:
> 
> This is an architecture document, not a protocol specification. 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2017 7:36 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"  wrote:
> > I wanted to know if the scope of this is reasonable and is what the
> > working group wants to take on.
> 
> I think the scope of this is too wide.  It tries to solve a number of
> different problems:
> 
>   1. naming within the Homenet;
>   2. publishing names of Homenet nodes outside the Homenet;
>   3. resolving names outside the Homenet in the presence of multiple 
> providers;
>   4. announcing multiple providers' naming spaces when the providers
>  provide inconsistent information.
> 
> My gut feeling is that if you insist on a single protocol that solves all
> four, you'll end up with more complexity than if you solve each problem on
> its own.
> 
> > If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.
> 
> I suggest picking just one problem and solving it.  (1) in the above list
> would be the obvious choice.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> ___
> 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] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

2017-07-31 Thread Ted Lemon
This is an architecture document, not a protocol specification.

On Jul 31, 2017 7:36 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"  wrote:

> > I wanted to know if the scope of this is reasonable and is what the
> > working group wants to take on.
>
> I think the scope of this is too wide.  It tries to solve a number of
> different problems:
>
>   1. naming within the Homenet;
>   2. publishing names of Homenet nodes outside the Homenet;
>   3. resolving names outside the Homenet in the presence of multiple
> providers;
>   4. announcing multiple providers' naming spaces when the providers
>  provide inconsistent information.
>
> My gut feeling is that if you insist on a single protocol that solves all
> four, you'll end up with more complexity than if you solve each problem on
> its own.
>
> > If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.
>
> I suggest picking just one problem and solving it.  (1) in the above list
> would be the obvious choice.
>
> -- Juliusz
>
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet


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

2017-07-31 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> I wanted to know if the scope of this is reasonable and is what the
> working group wants to take on.

I think the scope of this is too wide.  It tries to solve a number of
different problems:

  1. naming within the Homenet;
  2. publishing names of Homenet nodes outside the Homenet;
  3. resolving names outside the Homenet in the presence of multiple providers;
  4. announcing multiple providers' naming spaces when the providers
 provide inconsistent information.

My gut feeling is that if you insist on a single protocol that solves all
four, you'll end up with more complexity than if you solve each problem on
its own.

> If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.

I suggest picking just one problem and solving it.  (1) in the above list
would be the obvious choice.

-- Juliusz

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


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

2017-07-31 Thread Ray Bellis
On 31/07/2017 10:53, Ted Lemon wrote:

> Daniel wanted to do another update, but we needed to sync up first, and
> I don't know where he is at with that now, but I think it would be
> reasonable to put the CFA on hold pending that update.   There have been
> some good comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz'
> point that it would be nice to actually try some of this in practice is
> good, and is what I'm working on now.   I think having that done before
> the document is adopted is a pretty high bar, but I don't really care
> either way.
> 
> That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning
> our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope
> of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take on.  
> If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.

The point of a CFA is not to have a document that's nearly ready to publish.

It's to get agreement that a document is an appropriate direction for
the WG to explore, even if it might require substantial work.

As part of that, adoption also cedes change control from the authors to
the WG.

I'd therefore like to leave this in place for now, and request that
reviewers re-examine it bearing the above in mind.

thanks,

Ray

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


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

2017-07-31 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jul 30, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Michael Richardson  wrote:
>> and then there is draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative reference.
> 
> concerns me most.  Unless it's in RFC-editor queue (it's not, it's expired!),
> I'm pretty sure it's a very much normative reference.  So Homenet needs an
> answer as to how to deal with this dependancy.  It seems that we'd need to
> adopt it, copy and paste the text into this document, or reboot MIF...

There was widespread agreement in INTAREA to adopt this:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bruneau-intarea-provisioning-domains-02 


I actually intended to reference this—I just got my wires crossed because 
google gave me the link to the other one, which as you say is dead.

The current rev of the homenet naming architecture is pretty thin—I put a lot 
of work into the dnssd stuff, because I wanted to have it pretty solid before 
referencing it in the MPVD architecture document.   If you weren't in homenet, 
it might indeed be worth reviewing my presentation in the meetecho.   Stuart's 
presentation in dnssd might also be worth reviewing.

Anyway, a consequence of the emphasis on the dnssd work is that I had about an 
hour to update the naming architecture document before the submission deadline, 
and the update is minimal, to be as charitable as possible.

Daniel wanted to do another update, but we needed to sync up first, and I don't 
know where he is at with that now, but I think it would be reasonable to put 
the CFA on hold pending that update.   There have been some good comments 
already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that it would be nice to 
actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what I'm working on now.  
 I think having that done before the document is adopted is a pretty high bar, 
but I don't really care either way.

That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning our 
wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope of this is 
reasonable and is what the working group wants to take on.   If it's not, then 
I don't actually know how to proceed.

(BTW, Juliusz, yes, HNCP is where the domain name is agreed upon.)

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


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

2017-07-30 Thread Michael Richardson

Tim Chown  wrote:
> See Stuart’s deck from Prague for context:
> 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-dnssd-dns-sd-update-and-new-work-items-00.pdf

>> and then there is draft-ietf-mid-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative 
reference.
>> Will homenet will to adopt that too?
>>
>> So it seems that I have to read the other documents in detail before I 
can
>> make any clear opinion as to how this all fits together.
>> (I think I've missed the last two homenet WG meetings due to conflicts; I
>> should watch them on meetecho recording to learn more I guess)

> It turned out that only 4 people had time to read them for Prague.

> The interesting twist is the pushback on multicast for future specs.

> I agree it’s early for an adoption call, likewise for the draft-sctl-*
> drafts in dnssd.

Actually, if the relevant draft-sctl-* drafts were clearly about to adopted
by dnssd, then I would have no problem with the timing of the adoption call.
(I don't know: I'm truly ignorant here.  I can't read every ML and attend
every WG session, sadly)

The document does not, as Juliuz says, define a protocol, but it does provide
a clear profile on how to use other work.  I'm also fond of adopting a
document as soon as it looks like the table of contents is sane :-)

But, the question as to:

 > and then there is draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative 
reference.

concerns me most.  Unless it's in RFC-editor queue (it's not, it's expired!),
I'm pretty sure it's a very much normative reference.  So Homenet needs an
answer as to how to deal with this dependancy.  It seems that we'd need to
adopt it, copy and paste the text into this document, or reboot MIF...


--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





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


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

2017-07-30 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> I have some other fairly serious nits about this document, but I believe
> that the argument above is sufficient.  I am opposed to adoption at this
> stage, but look forward to reconsidering once dnssd has had a serious look
> at the protocols.

I didn't want the point of the previous mail to be diluted by a list of
nits, so I've kept it short.  Here are just some of the more serious
issues I've noticed when doing a first read of the document.

Please be aware that even if these issues were resolved, I would not
necessarily support adoption.

> 1.  Introduction

> o  Provisioning of a domain name under which names can be published
>and services advertised

This document doesn't mention HNCP's mechanisms to do that.  Either this
document updates HNCP to not provision a domain name, in which case it
should say so, or it relies on HNCP's mechanism, in which case it should
say so.

> 1.  Some names may be published in a broader scope than others.

This implies that the local and global publication mechanism are the same,
which does not reflect WG consensus as far as I am aware.  I've already
mentioned on this list that I believe that local and global naming should
use different mechanisms -- by merging the two, you're converting two
tractable problems into one that is difficult.

> 6.  Homenet explicitly supports multihoming--connecting to more than
> one Internet Service Provider--and therefore support for multiple
> provisioning domains [6] is required to deal with situations
> where the DNS may give a different answer depending on whether
> caching resolvers at one ISP or another are queried.

This implies that mpvd is the preferred mechanism.  As far as I know, this
does not reflect WG consensus.

> 3.1.  Configuring Resolvers

> Hosts on the homenet receive a set of resolver IP addresses using
> either DHCP or RA.  IPv4-only hosts will receive IPv4 addresses of
> resolvers, if available, over DHCP.  IPv6-only hosts will receive
> resolver IPv6 addresses using either stateful (if available) or
> stateless DHCPv6, or through the domain name option in router
> advertisements.  All homenet routers provide resolver information
> using both stateless DHCPv6 and RA; support for stateful DHCPv6 and
> DHCPv4 is optional, however if either service is offered, resolver
> addresses will be provided using that mechanism as well.

Either this restates the requirements in RFC 7788, in which case it must
say so, or it updates RFC 7788, in which case it must say in what way.

> every HNR is required to provide name resolution service.

I do not believe that this reflects WG consensus.

(Speaking as the author of shncpd -- I think it's a bad idea.)

> 3.3.  Resolution of local names

> IP addresses and names advertised locally MUST use addresses in the
> homenet's ULA prefix and/or RFC1918 prefix.

I do not understand this requirement.  Is it about direct or reverse
resolution?

> Homenet hybrid proxies MUST filter out global IP addresses, providing
> only ULA addresses,

Is this a restatement of the requirement above, or is it a new requirement?

> Artificial link names will be generated using HNCP.  These should only
> be visible to the user in graphical user interfaces in the event that
> the same name is claimed by a service on two links.

It is not our job to standardise the behaviour of GUIs.  If such advice is
desired, it should go into an informative appendix.

> 3.5.  Support for Multiple Provisioning Domains

> Homenets must support the Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture [6].

As mentioned at the beginning of this mail, this does not represent WG
consensus.

> In order to support this architecture, each homenet router that
> provides name resolution must provide one resolver for each
> provisioning domain (PvD).  Each homenet router will advertise one
> resolver IP address for each PvD.

So not only does this document require having a DNS proxy on each router,
but it actually requires a complex form of split horizon.  I believe the
WG should think the consequences very carefully before committing to such
a path.

(Speaking as the author of shncpd -- this is out of the question as far as
I'm concerned.)

> When queries are made to the homenet-PvD-specific resolver for names
> that are not local to the homenet, the resolver will use a round-robin
> technique, alternating between service providers with each step in the
> round-robin process,

This is exactly the wrong thing to do, since it makes the Homenet resolver
as unreliable as the most unreliable of the providers' resolvers.

-- Juliusz


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


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

2017-07-30 Thread Tim Chown
Hi,

> On 30 Jul 2017, at 18:19, Michael Richardson  wrote:
> 
> I have read homenet-naming.
> 
> It wasn't quite the document I was expecting.
> But rather seems to leverage upon a number of other draft-sctl* documents in 
> progress.
> 
> What are the plans for draft-sctl-*?

I don’t think they’re cited in this draft. Many of them are over in the dnssd 
WG.

See Stuart’s deck from Prague for context:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-dnssd-dns-sd-update-and-new-work-items-00.pdf

> and then there is draft-ietf-mid-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative reference.
> Will homenet will to adopt that too?
> 
> So it seems that I have to read the other documents in detail before I can
> make any clear opinion as to how this all fits together.
> (I think I've missed the last two homenet WG meetings due to conflicts; I
> should watch them on meetecho recording to learn more I guess)

It turned out that only 4 people had time to read them for Prague. 

The interesting twist is the pushback on multicast for future specs. 

I agree it’s early for an adoption call, likewise for the draft-sctl-* drafts 
in dnssd.

Tim

> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

2017-07-30 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> It wasn't quite the document I was expecting.  But rather seems to
> leverage upon a number of other draft-sctl* documents in progress.

I agree with Michael -- this is not a protocol definition, it is an
informal outline of how a number of other protocols can be made to fit
together.  It has normative dependencies on no less than 5 different
-sctl- drafts, none of which have been adopted by dnssd yet.

I believe that it would be premature to adopt this document.  Let us
please wait and see whether dnssd decides to adopt the depended-upon
drafts.  Let us also see whether the implementation complexity is
manageable, and whether the large number of moving parts causes undesired
brittleness.

I have some other fairly serious nits about this document, but I believe
that the argument above is sufficient.  I am opposed to adoption at this
stage, but look forward to reconsidering once dnssd has had a serious look
at the protocols.

-- Juliusz

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


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

2017-07-30 Thread Michael Richardson

I have read homenet-naming.

It wasn't quite the document I was expecting.
But rather seems to leverage upon a number of other draft-sctl* documents in 
progress.

What are the plans for draft-sctl-*?
and then there is draft-ietf-mid-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative reference.
Will homenet will to adopt that too?

So it seems that I have to read the other documents in detail before I can
make any clear opinion as to how this all fits together.
(I think I've missed the last two homenet WG meetings due to conflicts; I
should watch them on meetecho recording to learn more I guess)


--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





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


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

2017-07-28 Thread STARK, BARBARA H
Hi homenet,
Thanks to all of you for your well-wishes and congratulations (and condolences) 
for my new role as a homenet chair.
As my first official act, under the excellent tutelage of Ray, I'm launching a 
2 week Call for Adoption on draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming. The call will end 
August 11. 
Please read the draft (if you haven't done so already), and express your 
thoughts on whether and why we should adopt this draft. 

And don't forget to yell at me whenever I do anything wrong! I'm new to all 
this IETF chairing process and fully expect to make all sorts of new and 
exciting mistakes.
Barbara

> -Original Message-
> From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:05 AM
> 
> The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state
> Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Barbara Stark)
> 
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming/

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