Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router

ssion does indeed belong in Homenet, where we are specifically chartered to investigate the issues surrounding addressing and routing within the SOHO network. Ray Bellis Homenet WG co-chair ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] IETF 81 draft minutes

The draft minutes of the Homenet WG session at IETF 81 are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/homenet.pdf Please submit any comments or corrections by next Thursday (11th). Thanks, Ray & Mark ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org ht

[homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft

§3.2 "Principles" since I get the impression that some of those may be quite contentious. The discussion on LAN-side routing is interesting and I'm happy to see that continue. However we must also work on the bigger picture before getting rat-holed too much into implementation details.

Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft

> Hi Ray, > > I don't agree with the statement: "However we must also work on the bigger > picture before getting rat-holed too much into implementation details." > > I found the discussion on routing protocols very relevant. I hope the > group can also review/revise the architecture at the same t

Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

On 7 Aug 2011, at 02:18, "james woodyatt" wrote: > In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring > general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. +1 (no hat) Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https:

Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft

On 16 Aug 2011, at 21:41, Howard, Lee wrote: ISTR mention of an interim meeting, but haven't heard anything since Quebec. It is being planned at the moment. Please watch this space - I hope to be able to announce dates and venue later this week. Ray _

[homenet] IETF 81 meeting minutes

Final minutes of the IETF 81 WG session are now available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/homenet.txt No changes (other than formatting) were made from the draft minutes published two weeks ago. Ray and Mark Homenet WG Chairs ___ hom

[homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement

We have received approval from our AD for an Interim Meeting before IETF 82. Courtesy of Comcast, that meeting will be held on the 6th and 7th of October in Philadelphia. This is the two working days immediately preceding NANOG 53 (also in Philly) so we expect that many from the vendor and oper

Re: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement

On 31 Aug 2011, at 14:12, Angelo P. Castellani wrote: > Will be possible to remotely partecipate (audio, jabber, slides) to > this meeting? Jabber - yes, definitely - as far as I know the WG jabber rooms are always available. Audio is expected, but the details are still TBC. That said, we pl

[homenet] Homenet WG Interim Meeting Announcement

Fall 2011 Homenet Interim = October 6th - 7th 2011 Hosted by Comcast. The HUB, United Plaza, 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Statement of goals and scope The focus of the October Homenet Interim meeting is to harness and channel c

Re: [homenet] DNS and IPV6 within the home

It has been suggested that a possible consequence of the new gTLD programme may be the deprecation of single label "local" hostnames and DNS search suffixes. There may be no practical way to differentiate a single label hostname from a gTLD with an A (or ) record at its apex. For example, w

[homenet] Homenet Interim - registration now open

The registration page for the Homenet Interim on 6th and 7th October is now available at: http://www.ietf.org/registration/homenet/ietfreg.py Ray & Mark ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] DNS and IPV6 within the home

One should, yes. Many existing ipv4 RGs don't however let you override the DNS settings correctly. See RFC 5625 and SSAC035. Ray Sent from my iPhone On 10 Sep 2011, at 14:35, "Frank Bulk" wrote: > Exactly. If the DNS server(s) handed out by the RG are configurable, then > one should be able

[homenet] Interim meeting - Wednesday evening

For early arrivals to our Interim we have a slot on Wednesday evening for an informal social gathering (i.e. beer and nibbles in a bar somewhere). Comcast have graciously offered instead to invite the Interim attendees to the ISOC social event following INET Philadelphia reception on the 43rd fl

[homenet] List administrivia

Please trim the recipient lists on your replies to the list - we're getting quite a few messages held up for moderation because they've hit the limit on the number of recipients. thanks, Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf

[homenet] Interim update

- Architecture Draft I'd like to remind the group that the principle objective of the Interim Meeting this Thursday and Friday is to help establish consensus around the Architecture Draft (currently draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.txt). With that in mind, would attendees _please_ ensure that they'r

[homenet] Interim meeting - audio bridge

We were unable to source an audio streaming service, so instead a conference bridge will be available. We shall also be using the WG's Jabber channel: xmpp:home...@jabber.ietf.org The access code for the audio bridge is: 2152863992 Here are all of the access dial-in codes from various locations

Re: [homenet] Agenda?

On 6 Oct 2011, at 11:07, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? Yes, it's on the Trac Wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/wiki/WikiStart Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://ww

Re: [homenet] Agenda?

On 6 Oct 2011, at 15:04, Tim Chown wrote: > I think they're the ones on the wiki page? The ones on the wiki page are the version from _before_ they were edited mid session. I hope to update those once we've revisited that requirements page once more. > Fred's upcoming slides are on the wiki p

Re: [homenet] scope questions as a result of interium meeting

On 7 Oct 2011, at 20:16, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I don't know what kind of network connection or what kind of wifi > access point, or what kind of router they have there. The reason I ask, > is because 70% chance that it was really a "consumer" grade, and I might > even bet that it was run

Re: [homenet] security question for zeroconf stuff inside the homenet...

On 11 Oct 2011, at 18:13, Stephen Farrell wrote: > When various devices in the home figure out which does what, > and do that periodically to handle changes, there's clearly > the potential that a zombied host tries to try take over > stuff with undesirable consequences. > > My question is wheth

Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture & Interim Meeting

On 21 Oct 2011, at 19:49, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > What people are arguing is a violation of the end-to-end principle is > having a provider put in place filters that can't be shut of by the > consumer. Anything outside of the home network is outside of our scope. Ray ___

Re: [homenet] routing requirements

On 22 Oct 2011, at 01:18, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: Note the IETF IPv6 CE router specifies use of the ULA in the home to keep the home network independent of the SP network. This way my computer at home can still print to the printer even when my SP IPv6 network is down. We have said thi

Re: [homenet] routing requirements

On 22 Oct 2011, at 04:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Nice list. +1 from me, too. This looks to me like a good basis for a detailed routing requirements draft... Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/home

[homenet] IETF82 Homenet WG - Provisional Agenda

The provisional agenda for our session at IETF 82 is now online at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/agenda/homenet.txt and included below. The longest slot is for draft-chown-homenet-arch since that's the document that we expect to become draft-ietf-homenet-arch very shortly after IETF 82 and

[homenet] IETF82 - session administrivia

At the moment the planned agenda for next week's WG session is unchanged from the one posted last Wednesday, and online at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/agenda If you are scheduled to talk, please if _at all possible_ get your presentation materials to the Chairs by the evening of Sunday 13t

[homenet] Presentation materials

Just a reminder for people due to present Tuesday - please if at all possible get your presentation materials to the chairs by this evening! thanks, Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] Note Taker(s) and Jabber Relay for the WG session?

Mark and I would appreciate advance volunteers for the rôles of Jabber Relay and Note Taker(s) for tomorrow's WG session. Time is short during the session and we'd rather avoid that awkward silence as everyone tries to avoid catching our eye if we have to ask for volunteers during the session i

Re: [homenet] Note Taker(s) and Jabber Relay for the WG session?

On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:48, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > Hi All, > Please count on me as note taker, I would rather if someone else is > also taking notes just in case I miss something since my native > language is not English. > > Thanks, > > Alejandro, Thank you Alejandro - that's much appreciat

[homenet] Meeting Materials

All of the meeting materials are visible at: Unfortunately the meeting agenda page on the Tools website is not updated in real-time as materials are uploaded so is out of date. Ray ___ homenet

Re: [homenet] secret sharing among devices

On 15 Nov 2011, at 17:35, Robert Cragie wrote: Exactly, so why all the conversation about USB? This is the domain of Wi-Fi/ZigBee/HomePlug/UPnP/DLNA, not really the IETF, IMHO. Yes, let's please *not* rathole down the actual exchange mechanism. Ray ___

Re: [homenet] pervasive v4

On 16 Nov 2011, at 14:35, Randy Turner wrote: > > Good points...Speaking of Bonjour, I haven't seen many references to support > for multicast (yet)...I'm assuming this is on the plate. Yes, it was one of the topics of discussion at the interim, mostly in the context of naming and service dis

Re: [homenet] other routing options

On 23 Nov 2011, at 17:21, Howard, Lee wrote: > You mean 6lowpan type networks? I thought we had consensus to draw a circle > around them and say, "put a device between that network and this." That was certainly the room consensus at the Interim and will hopefully be reflected in the architec

Re: [homenet] other routing options

On 24 Nov 2011, at 07:31, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: RPL is designed to accommodate that. Please see our message of 17th November. If your favourite routing protocol is not being considered, please write a draft describing its applicability to Homenet. thanks, Ray

Re: [homenet] Next steps

On 17 Nov 2011, at 10:16, Mark Townsley wrote: First, we'd like to formally move draft-chown-homenet-arch-01 to draft-ietf-homenet-arch-00. This of course does not mean that the document is finished, just that this will be the document the working group will recognize as its collective work in

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt

On 29 Dec 2011, at 22:33, Howard, Lee wrote: > I got tired of waiting for someone else to drive consensus on a routing > solution If there is consensus, it's for zOSPF, if only because no-one else appears to believe strongly enough in their preferred solution to write a draft about it. I thin

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-01.txt

On 30 Jan 2012, at 16:38, 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. > We'd like to urge all WG participants to review this draft and provide feedback. This is ou

[homenet] -00 submission deadline

Just a quick reminder that the submission deadline for any new -00 drafts is just under two weeks away on 5th March. If you have new material that you would like to present in Paris please get your drafts in soon! Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet

Re: [homenet] Home DNS server for homenet

On 2 Mar 2012, at 11:21, wrote: > I think the idea works for both IPv4 with NAT and IPv6. > > Does the idea work for homenet WG? > Or already discussed ? > > If the idea is valuable, I will write a draft and sample DNS server. Fujiwara-san Thanks for your note. The idea of running a local

Re: [homenet] Home DNS server for homenet

On 5 Mar 2012, at 15:10, Simon Perreault wrote: > That could mean new draft in this WG, wouldn't it? It _might_, but IMHO not until we've addressed those "bigger picture" issues I mentioned. In practise, all such CPE servers that I know of that implement the TR-124 requirement do it using the

Re: [homenet] Home DNS server for homenet

On 5 Mar 2012, at 15:15, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote: > RI see. DHCP has enough function. RFC 2132 defines DHCP client host > name option, and RFC 4702 Section 3.2. "Client Desires to Update A > RRs" defines the option to DNS RR. > > # I'm not aware that DHCPv6 has the same option. Me neither, alth

[homenet] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Kerry Lynn and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns Revision:00 Title: Extended Multicast DNS Creation date: 2012-03-05 WG ID: Individ

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

On 9 Mar 2012, at 18:05, Ralph Droms wrote: > Here's my list of "desired behaviors" for name resolution, proposed for > inclusion in the architecture document; comments and suggestions welcome: Thanks - here are some comments, without my hat on: > * Disconnected operation ("fate sharing"): nam

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

On 11 Mar 2012, at 15:22, Fred Baker wrote: > ICANN is now selling "dotless" names. A name without dots has a defined > behavior in most DNS resolvers; they find a way to further qualify them. Do > we want to humor ICANN, or solve this? AIUI, the problem is more that on some operating systems

[homenet] Volunteers for minute takers, jabber relays?

Mark and I would appreciate advance volunteers to take minutes, and to relay comments from jabber to the mic. If you're able to help, please let us know soonest so we can save time during the WG session itself. thanks, Ray ___ homenet mailing list h

Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs

On 27 Mar 2012, at 23:12, Thomas Herbst wrote: > "Fully stable" would be static and I don't think anyone is suggesting > static. While devices must be able to survive address changes, they > should not have to change addresses frequently. How often is "frequently"? I know of at least one ISP

[homenet] WG session draft minutes

Draft minutes from the Paris session are now online at: Please send any corrections by Tuesday 1st May at the latest. thanks, Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://ww

Re: [homenet] homenet ospfv3 implementation

On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:39, Jari Arkko wrote: FYI. I've made some progress with my implementation. I held a presentation on this at RIPE this week: http://thingsonip.blogspot.com/2012/04/home-networks-by-magic.html Video of the presentation has also just been put online:

Re: [homenet] I have a problem

On 8 May 2012, at 19:25, james woodyatt wrote: > Also, I too think this discussion is off topic for HOMENET. +1 (for now) ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] I have a problem

On 9 May 2012, at 21:03, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Do you mean the BTMM tangent, or the whole discussion? > IMHO, the whole discussion, although I didn't get a chance to discuss with my co-chair yet. We have enough on our plate getting the initial homenet architecture defined. This topic mi

Re: [homenet] any plan?

On 28 Jun 2012, at 14:10, Tim Chown wrote: > Some expert comment on naming and service discovery areas has been solicited. and I'm promised should be arriving imminently... > I believe a session is booked. Yes, a session has been booked. Mark and I will be sorting out the agenda shortly, but

[homenet] -03 comments?

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 on this document. I hope to see only one or two

[homenet] Draft Agenda uploaded

The draft agenda is available at: Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] IETF84 Agenda updated

The session agenda for IETF84 has been updated: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/agenda/agenda-84-homenet We have one volunteer note taker. We would appreciate advance volunteers for another note taker and jabber relays! thanks, Ray & Mark ___ h

Re: [homenet] Reverse DNS

On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:52, james woodyatt wrote: > I'd like to suggest gently that a related problem, i.e. how to register > authoritative name services for the subdomains of ip6.arpa corresponding to > prefixes delegated to home networks, is a lot more pressing. Could you explain _why_ you c

Re: [homenet] Reverse DNS

On 31 Jul 2012, at 14:35, Michael Thomas wrote: > Do you mean (in bind parlance at least) the CPE is the master, and the > ISP is the slave even though it's authoritative? To the outside world, all published name servers are equally "authoritative". The master/slave (or "primary / secondary") r

[homenet] IETF84 minutes

The draft minutes are now online at: with massive thanks to Jiazi Yi & Thomas Clausen for taking those notes, and subsequently combining them for us. Please note that there are several places therein where speakers failed to ident

[homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

An interesting question has come up during the Arch Doc team's discussions around naming and service discovery: "What in-home services actually require Unicast DNS lookup?" [*] The one obvious case is in-home web servers (i.e. CPE configuration) although a prior posting suggested that most peop

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

On 10 Sep 2012, at 13:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Using literal addresses is evil for many reasons - surely we don't need to > discuss that ancient question again? I wasn't promoting it, just noting that this is the current position, with Bonjour et al becoming the "preferred" way. The lat

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

On 11 Sep 2012, at 05:25, Benjamin Kerensa mailto:bkere...@gmail.com>> wrote: Correct. 192.168.1.1 is also the most common default router IPv4 address. Many devices now support Bonjour for that ... What about "localhost" I've never yet seen a system that couldn't resolve localhost all by i

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

On 11 Sep 2012, at 02:41, james woodyatt wrote: > Really? How has the architecture team managed to overlook the obvious > problem that homenets with interior routing domains comprising multiple > networks cannot use either mDNS or LLMNR, which are confined to link-local > multicast scope, wi

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

On 22 Oct 2012, at 19:57, james woodyatt wrote: > I would say that it MUST be deprecated by the arch document. The arch document is Informational and contains no RFC 2119 keywords. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/m

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

On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:50, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > It can't deprecate it, but it can say that NPT66 is not supported in the > homenet architecture. Indeed. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] IETF85 session agenda

The IETF85 draft session agenda for Homenet is now online at: and shown below: --8<--8<-- Homenet Working Group 7th November 2012 09:00 - 09:10 Note Well, Jabber Relay, Note taker(s) 09:10 - 09:25 Homenet Architecture U

Re: [homenet] IETF85 session agenda

On 4 Nov 2012, at 10:06, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > > There is a draft from E. Kline called: draft-kline-default-perimeter-01. > I've been only able to find the first version (00). > Am I right? We are expecting a -01 from Erik when the document submission system re-opens. Ray _

[homenet] Session preparation

Would all those presenting tomorrow who didn't already do so please get your slides to the Chairs ASAP. If at all possible, please include slide numbers to aid remote participation! We'd like to extend our thanks to Hassan Zaheer for volunteering to take minutes for the meeting. We still need

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD (and architecture document)

On 8 Nov 2012, at 14:28, Ted Lemon wrote: > > Sure, but "log a system management error" is not something that a home router > vendor can meaningfully implement, unless it puts a speaker in the home > router and has it start bellowing "out of addresses" in every known language. > > But the rea

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

On 11 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Tim Chown wrote: > Just a note to highlight that this new version is available. I suspect the > chairs will want to push this to WGLC as soon as possible. Our plan is to issue the WGLC tomorrow. > All comments very welcome. If you wish to suggest changes, please give

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

This email marks the commencement of Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07. The WGLC will end on Monday March 4th. Ray and Mark. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] Call for agenda items

As some of you will no doubt have noticed, we've been allocated a 2.5 hour session which is currently scheduled for 09:00 EDT on Thursday March 14th. Mark and I are planning not to have to dedicate much of that slot to the Architecture Document which is now in WGLC. Therefore, if you have new w

Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model

On 22 Feb 2013, at 03:04, David Lamparter wrote: > - BIRD seems to be interested in adding IS-IS due to interest from SPs. > A branch exists, but not much progress has been made: > > [https://redmine.labs.nic.cz/projects/bird/repository?utf8=%E2%9C%93&rev=isis] Ondrej Filip tells me that thi

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 22 Feb 2013, at 03:45, Michael Thomas wrote: > Well, if one of the requirements is that I be able to control my washing > machine from across the continent, I'm not sure why we're even screwing with > mdns in this wg. And if that's not a requirement for this working group, I > have to ask

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 22 Feb 2013, at 12:37, Ted Lemon wrote: > Er, that came out wrong. I'm agreeing with "want to be able to access > devices in the home from away," not "working group was chartered in the last > century." :) > I am also skeptical about MDNS as a solution, though. Personally, I think

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

On 22 Feb 2013, at 15:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I went through the draft, and noticed an instance of the word "hoemnet" in > section 2.4. > > Otherwise I think this is now in good shape for publication. Brian - thanks for the review! Working Group participants: I know Tim has had some

[homenet] List administrivia

Would WG participants _please_ trim the list of recipients when sending to the list. I have a modest stack of messages that have been held by the list software because they have too many recipients, and which I will now release. I shall not release any more after that. Ray ___

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:21, Fernando Gont wrote: > Stupid question: > Can we enforce requirements on host implementations as a result of > homenet? We should avoid it wherever possible. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.or

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 26 Feb 2013, at 14:29, Ole Troan wrote: > for service discovery that's pretty much unavoidable. That's true. The charter does in fact acknowledge this: "Prefix configuration, routing, and security related work shall not cause any changes that are not backwards compatible to existing IPv6

[homenet] Session agenda

With apologies for not having actually posted this to the list sooner, the agenda for tomorrow's session is as follows: --8<--8<-- 09:00 - 09:05 Note Well, Jabber Relay, Note taker(s) 09:05 - 09:30 Homenet Architecture Update, WGLC progress draft-chown-homenet-arch-07 (Tim Chown - 25m

Re: [homenet] Why do homenets need SD?

On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:13, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> I don't have any statistics but it wouldn't shock me to hear that usb vs. >> networked printers are 10:1 more common. > > It would shock me. Bonjour printing Just Works. > It's also the only

[homenet] IETF86 draft minutes

With massive thanks to Thomas Heide Clausen, the minutes of the Orlando session are now online at: Please send any corrections to the chairs by April 24th at the latest. Ray

[homenet] 2nd Working Group Last Call for draft-homenet-arch

This email marks the commencement of the second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-homenet-arch-08. The WGLC will end on Monday June 17th. Please send your comments soonest, and in particular please check that any issues that you highlighted during the previous WGLC have been addressed. Ra

[homenet] Nomcom 2013/14

The 2013 Nomcom is still looking for more volunteers for its random selection pool. Please see for more details about volunteering. There's more about the Nomcom itself at Ray _

[homenet] Preliminary Berlin agenda

The preliminary agenda for Berlin is now available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/agenda/agenda-87-homenet The discussion on draft-chroboczek-homenet-configuration-separate-00 may not happen, and if so may make a suitable placeholder for the discussion that Michael Richardson proposed o

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

On 24 Sep 2013, at 16:49, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Tim Chown wrote: >tim> Do we want to spend more time now, given the desire to move ahead >tim> with the >tim> other work, restructuring the arch doc? It could be done, but I >tim> wonder whether > > I am opposed to any r

[homenet] Call for agenda items for IETF 88

IETF 88 in Vancouver is coming up on us fast! If you have items to wish to present, please let the chairs know ASAP. In the event of their being too many items for the agenda, priority will be given to items that have generated substantive discussion on the WG list. Please remember that as in B

[homenet] Preliminary Agenda for IETF 88 session

The preliminary agenda is now online at: Ray and Mark ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] Homenet session administrivia

The (hopefully) final version of the agenda for tomorrow's meeting is at: We already have a volunteer note taker (thanks Thomas!) An advanced volunteer or two for relaying the jabber room would be much appreciated! thanks, Ray a

[homenet] IETF88 minutes

Thomas' transcript of our session is now online at: There's a couple of unidentified speakers - if you're able to identify any of them please let me know! Ray ___ homenet mailing list

[homenet] IETF89 coming up fast!

Dear WG Participants, Just a reminder that it's now less than 5 weeks until IETF 89 in London. Work is carrying on in the background to clear up the DISCUSS points raised in the IESG review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch. We're hoping to see a -12 revision come out shortly. The submission deadlin

Re: [homenet] DHCP PD

On 3 Feb 2014, at 12:51, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > In this setting the Router3 could run two DHCPRelay processes, and Router1 > and 2 would be Servers. > > This would allow Host to obtain an address from each (==multi-homed). It could, but assume that Router3 doesn't yet know anything abou

[homenet] Submission cutoff

The submission cutoff for IETF 89 is *this Friday* 14th Feb at 23:59 UTC. Please get any new drafts in ASAP! thanks, Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] Draft Session Agenda

With apologies for the delay caused by both us chairs managing to be on vacation at the same time, please find the draft agenda for next Tuesday's session at thanks, Ray and Mark ___ homen

[homenet] IETF89 session notes

With thanks as usual to Thomas Heide Clausen, the notes and transcript of the Homenet session at IETF89 in London are now online at If you are able to fill in any of the blanks, or have any other corrections, please let me know by

[homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

At IETF 89 in London we took three hums: 1. On use of OSPF vs HNCP for configuration - strong consensus for HNCP 2. On how many routing protocols we should support in Homenet - strong consensus that it should be zero or one, but no consensus yet on which. 3. On adoption of HNCP as a WG item

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

On 27 Mar 2014, at 13:03, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Homenet has just avoided committing suicide by not requiring an > unimplementable, undebuggable monster of an OSPF+configuration > protocol. > > Are we now going to require an unimplementable, undebuggable monster > of an HCNP+routing proto

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00 {Sender Address Possibly Forged}

On 25 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Ray Bellis wrote: > Please therefore send your comments on adoption of this draft to the list > before 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 1st April. Oops, where did March go?! That should, of course, have read Tuesday *8th* April

Re: [homenet] Routing over IPv6 [was: Single or Multiple Routing Protocols...]

On 1 Jun 2014, at 14:07, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The chairs will let me know if that's too much of an off-topic for this list. Not at all, IMHO that was a very useful explanation. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.o

[homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Dear Working Group, You may have noticed multiple revisions of draft-ietf-homenet-arch posted recently. After many iterations and a ton of work for our Editor In Chief, Tim Chown, all IESG “DISCUSS” positions have been resolved to either “Yes” or “No Objection”, with the exception of one “Abst

[homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

[let's try that again, hopefully without b0rked line wrapping] Dear Working Group, You may have noticed multiple revisions of draft-ietf-homenet-arch posted recently. After many iterations and a ton of work for our Editor In Chief, Tim Chown, all IESG “DISCUSS” positions have been resolved to e

Re: [homenet] Moving forward with the routing section of the architecture document

On 20 Jun 2014, at 06:07, Ted Lemon wrote: > Thanks for whatever remaining patience you have to offer on this topic. and thanks Ted and Mark, for keeping this in shape while I've been off sick. Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://w

  1   2   3   >