From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Thu Aug 12 05:37:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427273A6A27 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.808, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAqBfk9n+LiT for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563673A6890 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([147.191.124.13]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.6280855; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:43:32 -0600 Received: from PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com (10.52.116.31) by copdcexhub02.cable.comcast.com (147.191.124.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.702.0; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:38:25 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:38:24 -0400 Received: from 147.191.227.151 ([147.191.227.151]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server legacywebmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.152]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:38:24 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.25.0.100505 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:38:30 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs Thread-Index: Acs6G0SfYBq5PhVz/UOnkfNYT1TpRQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3364447110_3677544" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2010 12:38:24.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[41923520:01CB3A1B] Subject: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:37:53 -0000 --B_3364447110_3677544 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charter be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG for now. An alternative is to leave the charter more open on the question, potentially giving us flexibility to figure this out once we start writing a document as well as to enable additional work via the new work consideration process discussed at the BoF. Any feedback? Jason --B_3364447110_3677544 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charte= r be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG = for now. An alternative is to leave the charter more open on the question, p= otentially giving us flexibility to figure this out once we start writing a = document as well as to enable additional work via the new work consideration= process discussed at the BoF.

Any feedback?

Jason --B_3364447110_3677544-- From ajs@shinkuro.com Thu Aug 12 05:58:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48F73A6A27 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.359 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7r6Q7qVsf9W4 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFE73A6A26 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F5B31ECB41D for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:59:22 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homegate@ietf.org Message-ID: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:58:51 -0000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:38:30AM -0400, Jason Livingood wrote: > As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charter > be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG > for now. I don't think that belongs in a charter. It's a purely editorial decision, IMO. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 12 06:07:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652323A6A24 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:07:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0GEK6uSPB9Y for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD153A6A0E for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:07:07 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=BWm6GqGD4QruLkwpUYEZX29P3F3pSFbAsAP3RbE8YV1rZIDBLAf0HJw8 mvl5LdDlRnC62/MSMUzbSzT3kOnoBZEYISoiTmPQS+m34lmCBNIp9uyAb Hf7bpULHZBGo2e5; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1281618465; x=1313154465; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20HomeGate=20BoF=20-=20final=20minutes=20availa ble|Date:=20Thu,=2012=20Aug=202010=2013:07:40=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<7535018E-5327-4536-8E96-95A6D2710834@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quote d-printable|Content-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20<44283FF6-4811-4709-A4DF-1A2CA23E8 0F9@nominet.org.uk>|References:=20<44283FF6-4811-4709-A4D F-1A2CA23E80F9@nominet.org.uk>; bh=EdlfSmqh0C0JaHc2h6ebrvBpf10t6VIog1nqgxAbdyM=; b=lmsmbPhzKvEIY4ua/UJjktavviM14G3BPz4E7Er5Y5kEF8SD0k/0H1zZ 4diZwp4hwsJ0DKBibcYiOPDUGJi4qtFln1cEeHyECzWcWXPbIt2dXhE2q D14XPTF8b9r3/2+; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,358,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="26537948" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2010 14:07:42 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:07:41 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: HomeGate BoF - final minutes available Thread-Index: AQHLOh9YcHfzfVP64UC+eW720nLcGg== Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:07:40 +0000 Message-ID: <7535018E-5327-4536-8E96-95A6D2710834@nominet.org.uk> References: <44283FF6-4811-4709-A4DF-1A2CA23E80F9@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <44283FF6-4811-4709-A4DF-1A2CA23E80F9@nominet.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homegate] HomeGate BoF - final minutes available X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:07:09 -0000 The chairs received one comment on the draft minutes from Paul Hoffman. The updated minutes are now available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/homegate.pdf and are hereby declared final. Ray Bellis HomeGate BoF co-chair From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 12 06:52:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FB83A6868 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sTn3E87lh5+K for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFE13A6A29 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:52:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=JLQ+uoDlY92tlGFiYRvLOmSZpt3WuW17S7uFGRIA5CC+zJxiRhDJF+4Q 1VlapAIYni+z6KH27AgIvoMEOh1PBoKqistTtjgig0Pbs9IY1JIbeQhfZ Km3IcFYrMJeDjX4; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1281621190; x=1313157190; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Charter=20Question=20-=201 =20Doc,=20Multiple=20Docs|Date:=20Thu,=2012=20Aug=202010 =2013:53:05=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org" =20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<8cb28e35-8c8f-44e4-ac6c-ef7339a371bc> |In-Reply-To:=20<20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> |References:=20=0D=0A=20<20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com>; bh=Jpw1skweV7vSf2YnzJ6AUVi6vD5kL5m99E43/jsf5wo=; b=tb0dhmAPO635uqD9UjvCN4Wz8qbdwsUe8Ie9m5BNUhS80Cw38Y+Cv5ZN E6hLWzokECRXTT3aqfSPk2LPOjAKBHyW9r+sNC6w64k35DQklABPuS8gD 5cfPQASQfvC4IwB; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,358,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="20669778" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2010 14:53:07 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:53:07 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs Thread-Index: AQHLOh43FqXo5hVdBkGG0OHiWWEox5Ldxl+A Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:53:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8cb28e35-8c8f-44e4-ac6c-ef7339a371bc> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:52:34 -0000 On 12 Aug 2010, at 13:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:38:30AM -0400, Jason Livingood wrote: >> As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the char= ter >> be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the W= G >> for now.=20 >=20 > I don't think that belongs in a charter. It's a purely editorial decisio= n, IMO. To help people find it, the current charter text is at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE I've just made some minor edits (see the Trac history) to fix a few minor g= rammatical errors and to remove any "single document" requirements. Please all review and comment on this text as soon as possible - the formal= decision on working group formation needs to happen pretty soon. In particular it would be useful to get ideas on what specifically should b= e addressed in the initial work item(s). Ray Bellis HomeGate BOF co-chair From kirk.erichsen@twcable.com Thu Aug 12 07:20:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9D73A682A for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:20:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IV2DooyC-GUS for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A973A694C for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,358,1278302400"; d="scan'208";a="111167033" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 12 Aug 2010 10:21:29 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.38]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:21:29 -0400 From: "Erichsen, Kirk" To: Jason Livingood , "homegate@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:20:13 -0400 Thread-Topic: Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs Thread-Index: Acs6G0SfYBq5PhVz/UOnkfNYT1TpRQADjXYx Message-ID: <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A6E9AAFC5@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:20:53 -0000 Jason, In my opinion, I would keep it open. Multiple docs are more likely than not= . I'm surprised that we would need to be that specific on the output. -KE ________________________________________ From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ja= son Livingood [jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:38 AM To: homegate@ietf.org Subject: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charter= be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG = for now. An alternative is to leave the charter more open on the question, = potentially giving us flexibility to figure this out once we start writing = a document as well as to enable additional work via the new work considerat= ion process discussed at the BoF. Any feedback? Jason This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 12 08:04:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF8B28C107 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.180, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1coan-UjCyQm for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2281028C103 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7CF5IuZ011361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:05:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:05:16 -0700 To: homegate@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:04:43 -0000 At 8:59 AM -0400 8/12/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:38:30AM -0400, Jason Livingood wrote: >> As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charter >> be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG >> for now. > >I don't think that belongs in a charter. It's a purely editorial decision, IMO. I agree that we don't have to limit the number of documents that the WG would produce at this point; we just don't know. HOWEVER, the proposed charter at says: >Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: The working group works to improve the networking experience for the user of home gateways. The group has the following work items: > >1. Recommendations and guideline documents for implementation of basic, mandatory functionality for IPv4-only home gateways (BCP) >2. Recommendations and guideline documents for implementation of basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) home gateways (BCP) Saying that this WG is going to produce #1 is just wrong. An IPv4-only document in 2011 *cannot* be a BCP; it is too myopic. I thought that I heard a fair amount of agreement with this at the mic during the BoF. A different proposal: The group has one initial work items, which might be followed by additional items that could be added in later charters. The initial work item is a Best Current Practices document with recommendations and guidelines for implementation of basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) home gateways. This document may include a profile for IPv4-only devices, but would make clear that excluding IPv6 is not recommended. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 12 08:52:28 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46283A67F7 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.305 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcaVyP4-ax+M for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2228E3A67E7 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:52:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=LF/dUuZr8cq2/whnguZXWNwvcJg8yDUKBFUI3tdnKCz8agPAvnnmvCM0 Sf6xOHngV4kp+xTtYkihricW3sz7KxVKJ0WFrFW+2N0tThmLUtaGsBGHa WI8LA/gUXauGInR; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1281628384; x=1313164384; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Charter=20Question=20-=201 =20Doc,=20Multiple=20Docs|Date:=20Thu,=2012=20Aug=202010 =2015:53:00=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<64018C24-20BE-4E8E-978 0-5264901B5D20@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org" =20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<0ad5f1c9-153b-45f2-ab40-fc5c881a4987> |In-Reply-To:=20 |References:=20=0D=0A=20<20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com>=20 ; bh=8r0/C29LbJYluoH2VlXKTpUthQhrHK9mry0+ihBauNo=; b=j1cFniApZ9MM53CNHxYpNi3PhhfCoU9PRR6S9AXdTPv7Gr/2o0Op5aPv XTs6UpEOqhHoO7KSSA4gvTCtEtxyt3F5FqRz+gURTwTtg0NH9zipRbWdK fTOgaulf0NFElQ/; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,358,1278284400"; d="scan'208";a="26544751" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2010 16:53:03 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:53:02 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs Thread-Index: AQHLOh43FqXo5hVdBkGG0OHiWWEox5Ld2ooAgAANVwA= Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: <64018C24-20BE-4E8E-9780-5264901B5D20@nominet.org.uk> References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0ad5f1c9-153b-45f2-ab40-fc5c881a4987> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:52:29 -0000 > agree that we don't have to limit the number of documents that the WG wo= uld produce at this point; we just don't know. HOWEVER, the proposed charte= r at says: >=20 >> Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: The working group works to improve= the networking experience for the user of home gateways. The group has the= following work items: >>=20 >> 1. Recommendations and guideline documents for implementation of basic, = mandatory functionality for IPv4-only home gateways (BCP) >> 2. Recommendations and guideline documents for implementation of basic, = mandatory functionality for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) home gateways (BCP) >=20 > Saying that this WG is going to produce #1 is just wrong. An IPv4-only do= cument in 2011 *cannot* be a BCP; it is too myopic. I thought that I heard = a fair amount of agreement with this at the mic during the BoF. I believe you're correct - the exact scope of the initial work items is (IM= HO) the most significant remaining issue with the charter. > A different proposal: >=20 > The group has one initial work items, which might be followed by addition= al items that could be added in later charters. The initial work item is a = Best Current Practices document with recommendations and guidelines for imp= lementation of basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6= ) home gateways. This document may include a profile for IPv4-only devices,= but would make clear that excluding IPv6 is not recommended. My concern with this is that I believe such an apparently wide-ranging docu= ment would essentially replicate much of Broadband Forum's TR-124. That's = already a 124 page document. [*] Not only would that make it out of scope for us, it would itself be a simil= arly long document which would likely take several years to complete. Hence from a workflow and productivity perspective I would rather see the g= roup initiate a series of documents each of which addresses a small part of= the home gateway functionality. Some of those elements will be agnostic to= the IPv4/v6 question. By focusing on individual functional elements we could attract subject matt= er experts for those documents, and (I believe) progress those work items m= uch more rapidly than if we try to put everything down in one place. =20 My own RFC 5625 is an example of just such a document. It's short, and onl= y addresses DNS and some minor DHCP issues. It took only(!) 10 months from= first individual draft to publication as an RFC. Let's think about the other pain points we actually know about. What about= IPSEC, SIP ALGs, all those other things that are commonly known not to wor= k the way they're supposed to? There are network operators here - what are your help desks telling you are= the common bugs that you see time and time again? In particular, which of= those bugs are due to incorrect implementation of IETF protocols? Ray Bellis HomeGate BoF co-char [*] http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-124_Issue-2.pdf From ajs@shinkuro.com Thu Aug 12 09:18:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19073A67E7 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.453 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5f-kDUbOasN for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9F83A682A for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44B781ECB41D for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:19:11 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homegate@ietf.org Message-ID: <20100812161911.GG63338@shinkuro.com> References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:18:42 -0000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 01:53:05PM +0000, Ray Bellis wrote: > Please all review and comment on this text as soon as possible - the formal decision on working group formation needs to happen pretty soon. > As a nit, the bullets following "These problems include but are not limited to:" don't follow or complete the sentence. What about "Prominent among the problems are the following:" or something similar? In the paragraph following the bullet list, there's the claim that a baseline will include RFCs that must be supported. This might raise fewer eyebrows if it said "ought to be", since the goal is not actually to specify anything, I think. "This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes recommendations …": the verbs need to agree. Perhaps remove the "s" on "makes". Working Group is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I fully agree with Paul that work item 1 is not something anyone should do. My impression was that that was the agreement in the room in Maastricht too. Since this is supposed to be work that guides _new_ gateways, and not just any gateway, I think the only advice anyone should give today is, "Don't build new IPv4-only gateways. They're already obsolete." We don't hardly need an RFC for that. Finally, at one point there was some discussion of making this about small-network gateways and not just "home". Did that decision get made while I was busy looking elsewhere? (I don't feel strongly about this, just asking.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From mbaugher@cisco.com Thu Aug 12 10:04:27 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A599E3A635F for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:04:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IaE0XqGoxTlU for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AAE3A6972 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABLHY0xAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACgNXGiaptUhToEhC6FMA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,359,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="146801393" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2010 17:05:02 +0000 Received: from [10.19.93.35] (sjc-mbaugher-8712.cisco.com [10.19.93.35]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7CH51AA021115; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:05:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <20100812161911.GG63338@shinkuro.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:05:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> <20100812161911.GG63338@shinkuro.com> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:04:27 -0000 On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >=20 > "This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes > recommendations =85": the verbs need to agree. Perhaps remove the "s" > on "makes". "Group makes" is typically used in American English and treats "group" = as a singular entity. Mark From ajs@shinkuro.com Thu Aug 12 10:18:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F47B28C123 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U9q7qcCwwMR8 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DFF28C11D for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 533541ECB41D; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:19:15 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Mark Baugher Message-ID: <20100812171915.GA64251@shinkuro.com> References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> <20100812161911.GG63338@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:18:45 -0000 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:05:00AM -0700, Mark Baugher wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > > "This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes > > recommendations …": the verbs need to agree. Perhaps remove the "s" > > on "makes". > > "Group makes" is typically used in American English and treats "group" as a singular entity. That's not the problem. The first verb is future tense, and the second isn't. It's at least awkward (but I think it's a malformed parallelism). Either the WG will do something, or else it does something. So "WG does not develop new protocols, but makes" or "will not develop, but make". A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 12 11:01:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745113A69CE for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.015 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6NO+tXh81c0c for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7A93A69E4 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7CI1mSw023241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:01:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <64018C24-20BE-4E8E-9780-5264901B5D20@nominet.org.uk> References: <20100812125922.GA63338@shinkuro.com> <64018C24-20BE-4E8E-9780-5264901B5D20@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:01:46 -0700 To: Ray Bellis , "homegate@ietf.org" From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:01:13 -0000 At 3:53 PM +0000 8/12/10, Ray Bellis wrote: > > A different proposal: >> >> The group has one initial work items, which might be followed by additional items that could be added in later charters. The initial work item is a Best Current Practices document with recommendations and guidelines for implementation of basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) home gateways. This document may include a profile for IPv4-only devices, but would make clear that excluding IPv6 is not recommended. > >My concern with this is that I believe such an apparently wide-ranging document would essentially replicate much of Broadband Forum's TR-124. That's already a 124 page document. [*] ...much of which is stuff we wouldn't put in an IETF document. This is an unfair comparison. >Not only would that make it out of scope for us, it would itself be a similarly long document which would likely take several years to complete. Why is it "out of scope for us"? More precisely, why is it in scope if we break it into a bunch of smaller documents as you proposed below, but out of scope if it is a single document? When I brought up logoizing in the BoF, there seemed to be a fair amount of support for it. I disagree that we would produce "a similarly long document"; lots of stuff in TR-124 is of no interest to the IETF. Given that we don't even have a WG, it seems a tad premature to say it would take several years to complete. That kind of depends on the document editors, the WG leadership, and the interest in the WG. I don't think we have an example in the IETF where breaking up a document into smaller bits has made the overall process go faster, and we have many counter-examples. >Hence from a workflow and productivity perspective I would rather see the group initiate a series of documents each of which addresses a small part of the home gateway functionality. Some of those elements will be agnostic to the IPv4/v6 question. If we did this, logoizing kind of goes out the door. "Complies with RFC 7821, 7369, 8230, and 8299" doesn't have nearly the oomf of "Complies with RFC 7821". Forcing customers to track many RFCs for their requirements gets us back to our current state. >By focusing on individual functional elements we could attract subject matter experts for those documents, and (I believe) progress those work items much more rapidly than if we try to put everything down in one place. That really depends on how the editor works. If the editor organizes the subject experts by section, it is no different than having them work on smaller documents. >My own RFC 5625 is an example of just such a document. It's short, and only addresses DNS and some minor DHCP issues. It took only(!) 10 months from first individual draft to publication as an RFC. Fully agree, and it is a great example of what we would want as part of the WG work. However, compare it to, for example, the IPv6 gateway firewall requirements document, that has taken significantly longer. >Let's think about the other pain points we actually know about. What about IPSEC, SIP ALGs, all those other things that are commonly known not to work the way they're supposed to? Fully agree. ALGs in general. DNS proxying. DNS pass-through (I don't consider DNS an "alg", but I know others do). IPv4 and IPv6 address discovery. >There are network operators here - what are your help desks telling you are the common bugs that you see time and time again? In particular, which of those bugs are due to incorrect implementation of IETF protocols? When we start hearing responses to that, it would be better to be able to pour them into one omnibus document instead of a zillion topic-specific documents, yes? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From ietfdbh@comcast.net Thu Aug 19 09:31:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDEE3A6993 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98Qf2jWPucAS for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026463A6889 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wAax1e0041ZXKqc5AGYEHw; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:32:14 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wGYD1e00S2JQnJT3hGYE7Z; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:32:14 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Jason Livingood'" , References: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:31:52 -0400 Message-ID: <549F6086DC1940CB8EE61F5ABA3E8675@23FX1C1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_021E_01CB3F9A.813CF3C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acs6G0SfYBq5PhVz/UOnkfNYT1TpRQFl1AhA Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:31:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_021E_01CB3F9A.813CF3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Let me inform you what I, as an IESG member and possibly the Responsible AD, will be looking for in a charter. I don't care how many documents you will need to document what you document. I will care a great deal that you can identify a clear deliverable that is achievable in a reasonable amount of time. I don't care much about the uniqueness of the name. I would prefer a name that is intuitive, that is reasonably indicative of the focus, but the name is just a name. Many of the proposed names are rather meaningless without a tag to explain it. homegate is fine with me, even though it is close to the HGI name. The documents we put out will be IETF RFCs; the documents they put out will be HGI or Homegate Initiative documents. Unless we have a joint working agreement where IETF's homegate and HGI's homegate are developing as a single team, I doubt we'll see much conflict from the name. We've had discussion of the name. Reach a consensus quickly or go with homegate. It's a bad sign when the homegate community gets distracted by minor details. IETF79 Working Group session scheduling has already started, and the cutoff is 9-27. The IESG needs to approve the charter. There are only three official telechats before that cutoff, and they are filling fast. We will want a WG session agenda to accompany the ietf79 session request Use your time wisely. I am concerned that the scope is so elusive. This MUST be nailed down. People are still expanding the list of what they want included in the scope. It is time to start cutting away things that will NOT be in scope for the initial charter. Here are my suggestions for cutting: If it is not an on-the-wire protocol, drop it. If it is IPv4-only, drop it If it will not impact the big-I Internet, drop it. If it is in the 20% of the 80/20, drop it. if it is a corner case, drop it, but note it as a corner case to keep in mind while designing. If it has only one proponent, drop it. You're ready when there is nothing left to cut away - what remains has consensus as being critical. Lars and I have not really talked about who will be the Responsible AD. It could be me. Personally, I like short charters. I suggest you plan on a first deliverable that can be submitted to IESG within 12 months. That will force you to really cut away anything not critical, and focus on what consensus you already have. The WG will have new chairs, new editors, and new contributors, and a new (to this WG) AD. Figuring out how to work together will be part of your first year's deliverables, like it or not. That's harder if you have multiple promised deliverables and a lack of clear consensus on the scope and content. People can always work on additional proposals outside the WG. After the first year, you'll have a better idea of consensus on what is needed for additional deliverables. Then you can ask the AD to extend the charter. And if people have developed individual proposals, you may have something concrete as a basis for new deliverables. By that time, the AD will also know whether the WG can accomplish what it sets out to accomplish. If you've done a good job, the AD willl likely grant you lots of leeway in the subsequent charter. If all the people who want things now walk away once the charter is approved, If people from other SDOs return to their SDOs and don't really contribute to the work here, If documents are published and nobody steps up to review them, If everybody goes off to work on their own drafts rather than helping get the WG drafts done, then the Responsible AD will probably be less likely to approve an extended charter. dbh _____ From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jason Livingood Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:39 AM To: homegate@ietf.org Subject: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs As we refine the charter, a question arising is whether to have the charter be very specific and state that only one document will come out of the WG for now. An alternative is to leave the charter more open on the question, potentially giving us flexibility to figure this out once we start writing a document as well as to enable additional work via the new work consideration process discussed at the BoF. Any feedback? Jason ------=_NextPart_000_021E_01CB3F9A.813CF3C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs
Hi,
 
Let me inform you what I, as an IESG member and = possibly=20 the Responsible AD, will be looking for in a=20 charter.
 
I don't care how many documents you will need to = document what=20 you document.
I will care a great deal that you can identify a = clear=20 deliverable that is achievable in a reasonable amount of=20 time.
 
I don't care much about the uniqueness of the = name.=20
I would prefer a name that is intuitive, that is = reasonably=20 indicative of the focus, but the name is just a = name.
Many of the proposed names are rather meaningless = without a=20 tag to explain it.
homegate is fine with me, even though it is close = to the HGI=20 name.
The documents we put out will be IETF RFCs; the = documents they=20 put out will be HGI or Homegate Initiative = documents.
Unless we have a joint working agreement where IETF's = homegate and=20 HGI's homegate are developing as a single team, I doubt we'll see much = conflict=20 from the name.
We've had = discussion of the=20 name.
Reach a consensus = quickly or go=20 with homegate.
It's a bad sign = when the=20 homegate community gets distracted by minor = details.
 
IETF79 Working Group session scheduling has = already=20 started, and the cutoff is 9-27.
The IESG needs to approve the charter.=20
There are only three official telechats = before that=20 cutoff, and they are filling fast.
We will want a WG session agenda to = accompany the=20 ietf79 session=20 request
Use your time = wisely.
 
I am concerned that the scope is so=20 elusive.
This MUST be nailed down.
People are still expanding the list of = what they=20 want included in the scope.
It is time to start cutting away things that will = NOT be in=20 scope for the initial charter.
 
Here are my suggestions for = cutting:
If it is not an on-the-wire protocol, drop=20 it.
If it is IPv4-only, drop it
If it will not impact the big-I Internet, = drop=20 it.
If it is in the 20% of the 80/20, drop=20 it.
if it is a corner case, drop it, but note it as a = corner case=20 to keep in mind while designing.
If it has only one proponent, drop = it.
You're ready when there is nothing left to cut = away - what=20 remains has consensus as being critical.
 
Lars and I have not really talked about who = will be the=20 Responsible AD. It could be me.
Personally, I like short=20 charters.
I suggest you plan on a first deliverable = that can be=20 submitted to IESG within 12 months.
That will force you to really cut away = anything not=20 critical, and focus on what consensus you already=20 have.
The WG will have new chairs, new editors, and = new=20 contributors, and a new (to this WG) = AD.
Figuring out how to work together will be = part of your=20 first year's deliverables, like it or = not.
That's harder if you have multiple promised=20 deliverables and a lack of clear consensus on the scope and=20 content.
People can always work on additional = proposals outside=20 the WG.
After the first year, you'll have a better = idea of=20 consensus on what is needed for additional=20 deliverables.
Then you can = ask the AD=20 to extend the charter.
And if people have developed individual = proposals, you=20 may have something concrete as a basis for new=20 deliverables.
By that time, the AD will also know whether = the WG can=20 accomplish what it sets out to = accomplish.
If you've done a good job, the AD willl = likely grant=20 you lots of leeway in the subsequent = charter.
If all the people who want things now = walk away=20 once the charter is approved,
If people from other SDOs return to their = SDOs and=20 don't really contribute to the work = here,
If documents are published and nobody steps = up to=20 review them,
If everybody goes off to work on their own = drafts=20 rather than helping get the WG drafts = done,
then the Responsible AD will probably be less = likely to=20 approve an extended charter.
 
 
dbh
 

From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org=20 [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jason=20 Livingood
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:39 = AM
To:=20 homegate@ietf.org
Subject: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 = Doc,=20 Multiple Docs

As we refine the charter, a question arising = is=20 whether to have the charter be very specific and state that only one = document=20 will come out of the WG for now. An alternative is to leave the = charter more=20 open on the question, potentially giving us flexibility to figure this = out=20 once we start writing a document as well as to enable additional work = via the=20 new work consideration process discussed at the BoF.

Any=20 feedback?

Jason ------=_NextPart_000_021E_01CB3F9A.813CF3C0-- From mbaugher@cisco.com Thu Aug 19 09:57:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520793A697B for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yLHtHGLcYziw for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558E63A696F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIT/bExAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACgUXGidJwDhTcEhDOFPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,234,1280707200"; d="scan'208,217";a="149557315" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2010 16:57:43 +0000 Received: from [10.19.93.34] (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7JGveTM010092; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:57:41 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-45--1012817841 From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <549F6086DC1940CB8EE61F5ABA3E8675@23FX1C1> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:57:40 -0700 Message-Id: References: <549F6086DC1940CB8EE61F5ABA3E8675@23FX1C1> To: David Harrington X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:57:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail-45--1012817841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Harrington wrote: > If it will not impact the big-I Internet, drop it. I think this has been a problem with past attempts to standardize home = network or private network protocols in the IETF. But I guess it = depends on how you define 'impact'. Mark --Apple-Mail-45--1012817841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
If it will not = impact the big-I Internet, drop = it.

I think this has been a = problem with past attempts to standardize home network or private = network protocols in the IETF.   But I guess it depends on how you = define = 'impact'.

Mark

= --Apple-Mail-45--1012817841-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Thu Aug 19 10:16:30 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28EF53A67F1 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3UIKBE5S8Wd for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76C43A69E1 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wFHi1e0081GhbT85EHH2wk; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:17:02 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id wHGy1e00T2JQnJT3THGzLH; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:16:59 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Mark Baugher'" References: <549F6086DC1940CB8EE61F5ABA3E8675@23FX1C1> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:16:35 -0400 Message-ID: <56D241F600324E5F9C5287282F480EEB@23FX1C1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0240_01CB3FA0.C1048FD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acs/v6UE+CBr9S6qSEWRRVhyjKEdWwAAgnfA Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:16:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0240_01CB3FA0.C1048FD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess it also depends on how you define "problem" The IETF Mission: The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. dbh _____ From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:58 PM To: David Harrington Cc: 'Jason Livingood'; homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Harrington wrote: If it will not impact the big-I Internet, drop it. I think this has been a problem with past attempts to standardize home network or private network protocols in the IETF. But I guess it depends on how you define 'impact'. Mark ------=_NextPart_000_0240_01CB3FA0.C1048FD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I guess it also depends on how you define=20 "problem"
 
The IETF Mission:
The mission = of the IETF=20 is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant=20 technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and = manage the=20 Internet.
 
dbh

From: Mark Baugher = [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: = David=20 Harrington
Cc: 'Jason Livingood';=20 homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - = 1 Doc,=20 Multiple Docs


On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Harrington wrote:
If it will not impact the big-I = Internet, drop=20 it.

I think this has been a problem with past attempts to standardize = home=20 network or private network protocols in the IETF.   But I guess = it=20 depends on how you define 'impact'.

Mark

------=_NextPart_000_0240_01CB3FA0.C1048FD0-- From mbaugher@cisco.com Thu Aug 19 12:48:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1B73A68B6 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:48:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wccLWQq6cKD for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092013A6890 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAMobUyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACgUnGkTZtqhTcEhDOFPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,235,1280707200"; d="scan'208,217";a="353726152" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2010 19:48:50 +0000 Received: from [10.19.93.34] (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7JJmo6a017725; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:48:50 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-46--1002547887 From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <56D241F600324E5F9C5287282F480EEB@23FX1C1> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:48:49 -0700 Message-Id: References: <549F6086DC1940CB8EE61F5ABA3E8675@23FX1C1> <56D241F600324E5F9C5287282F480EEB@23FX1C1> To: "David Harrington" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:48:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail-46--1002547887 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii David By "problem" I was referring to the lack of publication of any home = network standards. =20 Mark On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:16 AM, David Harrington wrote: > I guess it also depends on how you define "problem" > =20 > The IETF Mission: > The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by = producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the = way people design, use, and manage the Internet. > =20 > dbh >=20 > From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:58 PM > To: David Harrington > Cc: 'Jason Livingood'; homegate@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs >=20 >=20 > On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Harrington wrote: >=20 >> If it will not impact the big-I Internet, drop it. >=20 > I think this has been a problem with past attempts to standardize home = network or private network protocols in the IETF. But I guess it = depends on how you define 'impact'. >=20 > Mark >=20 --Apple-Mail-46--1002547887 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii David
  By "problem" I was referring to the lack of publication of any home network standards.  

Mark

On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:16 AM, David Harrington wrote:

I guess it also depends on how you define "problem"
 
The IETF Mission:
The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
 
dbh

From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: David Harrington
Cc: 'Jason Livingood'; homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter Question - 1 Doc, Multiple Docs


On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Harrington wrote:

If it will not impact the big-I Internet, drop it.

I think this has been a problem with past attempts to standardize home network or private network protocols in the IETF.   But I guess it depends on how you define 'impact'.

Mark


--Apple-Mail-46--1002547887-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Mon Aug 23 09:02:07 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E3A3A68DB for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.661 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.962, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_HOME=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWSEyWVAHVzF for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6ADB3A68D8 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id xqqW1e00827AodY53s2gZy; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:02:40 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id xs2f1e0052JQnJT3fs2f4q; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:02:39 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:01:34 -0400 Message-ID: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-Index: ActC2IFPoOFmg2XtTEGwSbBlRHnQCAAAd0Sw Subject: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:02:07 -0000 Hi, Here is a comment from another non-WG mailing list that seems relevant to homegate discussions. -----Original Message----- From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker we have too many names for these things... :-) in v6ops, it's being called a CPE Router, and in other venues its being called a residential gateway. I prefer calling it a "CPE Router" because the same router and the same infrastructure is often used for things that aren't homes - what are often called Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) networks (http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Small-Office-H ome-Office). The next step up is often called Small/Medium Business or SMB (http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci10 05201,00.html), and would have a higher throughput and often higher cost version of the same CPE. It would be hard to achieve consistent terminology across SDOs, but can we please develop consistent terminology across IETF WGs at least? Since there has been considerable discussion of what a home gateway is and what a home network is, it is obvious different people call similar things by different names. If you cannot agree on the terminology, you probably won't agree on the technologies and practices. I recommend a terminology section (or document) that reflects already-in-use terminology in the IETF and consensus for WG terms, as part of the charter deliverables, and then have any WG documents use consistent terminology. dbh From fred@cisco.com Mon Aug 23 09:17:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42033A67B4 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.816 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_HOME=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUfyehHihwHl for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0703A68D8 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGY7ckxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACgL3GgKJtahTcEhDWFQQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,258,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="150923995" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2010 16:18:27 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7NGIKaa021479; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:18:22 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:27 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:13 -0700 Message-Id: <1EEB747C-78AB-474B-BCF3-171F409FEF09@cisco.com> References: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> To: "David Harrington" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:17:57 -0000 That was my comment on Tina Tsou's use of "HWG", which I didn't grok, = and which she explained was intended to be "HGW" - Home Gateway". Consider this a +1 for a moderate level of conceptual continuity among = folks that are discussing the same thing. If it's a different name, it = might be worthwhile having a definition somewhere that says what is = different and why it is different. On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, David Harrington wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Here is a comment from another non-WG mailing list that seems relevant > to homegate discussions.=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >=20 > we have too many names for these things... :-) in v6ops, it's being > called a CPE Router, and in other venues its being called a > residential gateway. I prefer calling it a "CPE Router" because the > same router and the same infrastructure is often used for things that > aren't homes - what are often called Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) > networks > (http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Small-Office-H > ome-Office). The next step up is often called Small/Medium Business or > SMB > (http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci10 > 05201,00.html), and would have a higher throughput and often higher > cost version of the same CPE.=20 > >=20 > It would be hard to achieve consistent terminology across SDOs, but > can we please develop consistent terminology across IETF WGs at least? >=20 >=20 > Since there has been considerable discussion of what a home gateway is > and what a home network is, it is obvious different people call > similar things by different names. If you cannot agree on the > terminology, you probably won't agree on the technologies and > practices. I recommend a terminology section (or document) that > reflects already-in-use terminology in the IETF and consensus for WG > terms, as part of the charter deliverables, and then have any WG > documents use consistent terminology.=20 >=20 > dbh >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From duncan_bees@telus.net Mon Aug 23 09:26:31 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0052A3A6358 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_HOME=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95QOl0wj26Sq for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from defout.telus.net (defout.telus.net [204.209.205.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C883A689C for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from edmwaa03.telusplanet.net ([66.183.221.184]) by priv-edmwes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20100823162657.JJHU11714.priv-edmwes51.telusplanet.net@edmwaa03.telusplanet.net>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:26:57 -0600 Received: from DuncansmallPC (unknown [66.183.221.184]) by edmwaa03.telusplanet.net (BorderWare Security Platform) with ESMTP id E95E20742FD16E4D; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:26:56 -0600 (MDT) From: "Duncan Bees" To: "'Fred Baker'" , "'David Harrington'" References: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> <1EEB747C-78AB-474B-BCF3-171F409FEF09@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <1EEB747C-78AB-474B-BCF3-171F409FEF09@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:26:55 -0700 Message-ID: <004401cb42e0$00c5c660$02515320$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: ActC3t5Nx4qPM3IDS5WSY7jdVdFO+wAACtoQ Content-Language: en-ca X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Kp8XkLsj+ETmpLKACjazEtTHT5jaYByuFOE5D7hc800= c=1 sm=0 a=-RvSsgWWK4QA:10 a=IFFjgfa8MqcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=QEU1PmaifbXiKilm2KoLsQ==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=-tGrwHRrAAAA:8 a=FK-40bij6p8EX7-cn6MA:9 a=pXqZbtzspKQ_qQ32-TIA:7 a=rtvIhzF8aDzuyGonmHXNOTm2e0IA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=ErX2KOtKbzp59me3:21 a=cOcfyawUOI59Vqqc:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:27:16 -0700 Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:26:31 -0000 On terminology, Within HGI we have used HG (Home Gateway) for managed home routers used for residential applications which can include SOHO. The requirements document for HG thus forming a "residential profile" of requirements. SBG (Small Business Gateway) is a related profile of requirements for boxes going a bit further in support for small business. It is in draft within HGI. Best Regards Duncan Bees -----Original Message----- From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: August-23-10 9:18 AM To: David Harrington Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning That was my comment on Tina Tsou's use of "HWG", which I didn't grok, and which she explained was intended to be "HGW" - Home Gateway". Consider this a +1 for a moderate level of conceptual continuity among folks that are discussing the same thing. If it's a different name, it might be worthwhile having a definition somewhere that says what is different and why it is different. On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, David Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a comment from another non-WG mailing list that seems relevant > to homegate discussions. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > > we have too many names for these things... :-) in v6ops, it's being > called a CPE Router, and in other venues its being called a > residential gateway. I prefer calling it a "CPE Router" because the > same router and the same infrastructure is often used for things that > aren't homes - what are often called Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) > networks > (http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Small-Office-H > ome-Office). The next step up is often called Small/Medium Business or > SMB > (http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci10 > 05201,00.html), and would have a higher throughput and often higher > cost version of the same CPE. > > > It would be hard to achieve consistent terminology across SDOs, but > can we please develop consistent terminology across IETF WGs at least? > > > Since there has been considerable discussion of what a home gateway is > and what a home network is, it is obvious different people call > similar things by different names. If you cannot agree on the > terminology, you probably won't agree on the technologies and > practices. I recommend a terminology section (or document) that > reflects already-in-use terminology in the IETF and consensus for WG > terms, as part of the charter deliverables, and then have any WG > documents use consistent terminology. > > dbh > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 24 02:43:25 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BCA3A6767 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:43:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AiLoKlyf3mUO for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858173A6782 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:43:22 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version; b=KQjPmOQ7zxGyL58DCY0J2bjEsWmrNUwuZ1zlqXNmUkjWH6Orje5GRqJS g5chzPBbinTUSWDc2dHSxWtzxM/ZnhiS8IWpwy/paGxgcelWbfG/8LGDq pvH+V6rLL4yH/Ol; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282643036; x=1314179036; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Minor=20proposed=20charter=20text=20update |Date:=20Tue,=2024=20Aug=202010=2009:43:52=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quote d-printable|Content-ID:=20; bh=+I4UV850uo1u9ubhDq6zoLsLfua8SKSJXrFUGQeMjvg=; b=NZ7y5Z4o8+DS5JPwaT5hENvQeIlgvUqf2ZgqkptamtTAgDgQkvvCmrUK csJJNFojVKl/j+cn2DxjfKST1jfcNanf8huLeOKAcGqwkmaSEvxYIghG/ HOvHvfJNkCdgxly; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,262,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="20916879" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2010 10:43:54 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:43:53 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLQ3Dcbv2sjkFFK0eLVQxvmlYXnA== Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:43:52 +0000 Message-ID: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:43:26 -0000 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE I've reworded the first paragraph, removing the text about demarcation, and= introducing the concept of cascaded home gateways. I believe this address= es the question about whether the scope of the group includes other gateway= s sat _inside_ the customer network. I've also addressed Andrew Sullivan's nits, and removed the "IPv4" only wor= k item, per the discussion in Maastricht. The reference to the TCP over DNS draft has also been updated, since that's= just been published as RFC 5966. Ray From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 26 02:36:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01A33A6862 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:36:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dtwgc-xdtOzU for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C889F3A691B for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:34:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=tgqdg0MD9k9BBaw/Vc1h1EQAbluqRM1+jGKdoJUCWKfuntTq3BKdbGrl QH2kLRNZps8GA01cfsZG5j92MKSSjMqO5jCeBQbPymNpY52pH33p670bd KCpJ5QXU4elfvoj; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282815280; x=1314351280; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Thu,=2026=20Aug=202010=2009:32:4 8=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320 BB31@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20 |In-Reply-To:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nom inet.org.uk>|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-51131 1ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk>; bh=No7sfzETakRJrzXx9p4jzfLCbe6Sz1QPSKe7alDM2cQ=; b=22GWrX4MLfzx/hCH4KuckEdejRtEGpgEPY0SLH5fRgTG6kaQeSaDvT/J rs0M3FyXQVr13j6iQyY6BAqE3lzlRoa7wAyMnlxfEAWbQWb6wXQRCIhPr 5IVxA1+5K20e6wL; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,272,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="26900590" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 10:32:50 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:32:50 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLRQGl9Q82DnalKEKecXcVxGaVyA== Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:32:48 +0000 Message-ID: <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:36:43 -0000 Based on off-list feedback and the comments from David Harrington, I've als= o now amended the "proposed deliverables" section such that the _initial_ d= eliverable is a single recommendations document for dual-stack home gateway= s. Ray= From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Thu Aug 26 04:13:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3322A3A6AC4 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:13:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n8ffBxUNLHuI for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F4B3A6AA6 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1221154ewy.31 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=jw6OfNN9HKgQ3WlNwTJdUZiRwZ/F0IiBm71D9RIXaVo=; b=Z29tQHIEfZRADsLxM+amElzxjMp2KvUT/iziU6IkHye55NTN7zKHCp2UbleggTNudC pmX7tACUv/azawnS57r7NWf4iagl2oXQRzF+G/KrQXJOJpCA1o5mUkSrh9MSKzkLd411 UPsNTqvHW35/4SxZZICmUx/3x8Ia6XUqFU3lI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=RYHJ1jFS0xRe0O8TjdvEUllbjWu1NxczcoNJXAMzVWHt7eNTQPfO7otnykMfCxVh2X IQ5S4K6HEG12visE0hbBjUj3AdDXF+/+dQUQ2/lbz7/MPa6KX7jUHCR5GnXmKaFNwISm 3vUNhKCU1tEgjHfuaFO08InLoxP8N1pruGwtg= Received: by 10.213.13.2 with SMTP id z2mr495181ebz.96.1282821252415; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-125.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-125.cisco.com [64.103.53.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm3872576eeh.9.2010.08.26.04.14.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:14:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:13:54 -0000 Ray, > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE >=20 > I've reworded the first paragraph, removing the text about = demarcation, and introducing the concept of cascaded home gateways. I = believe this addresses the question about whether the scope of the group = includes other gateways sat _inside_ the customer network. why should a home network be restricted to a "cascading" topology? as = opposed to configured in an arbitrary topology. cheers, Ole= From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Thu Aug 26 04:14:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E233A6AA8 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-ad3+2O5JLh for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817AE3A6AAA for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1221751ewy.31 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:15:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=NDZhBck6UgiknHAvsVDpaAIW7iFVaBiYNQvnEjlZa2Q=; b=Ff5KVx32e/qzgb7fp6amle+9Ac0SisecgmPwdr3nvSK5N9B5XuYehWBGFSOUI4dziX aZd8oHUXR1MhIXwSoMtWcAnaaDLZa0EGE/OavOrSy/eSly7U1EHDEJqzwifl/bRlMBut hY8M6/HL+DAi/pQ386mTa9GZTdxnCyqvYHOIA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=bCJuP9lg5lW2By1OPOMifgF5XHSxFXJD1pr3uB7fRSttrSgwR3ERYeEktDCAX/vRfr DeV2OU+emkfg5uLaFtB0mMuKM7UFcO514imvm/h2tASEFGoFsQwYBSyQLoj3sG1fyGBn jg8OOEi550mfoTNJD2bDebeI+Zl4V7HRI8co0= Received: by 10.213.80.140 with SMTP id t12mr6745258ebk.27.1282821314501; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-125.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-125.cisco.com [64.103.53.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm3872576eeh.9.2010.08.26.04.15.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:15:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:14:48 -0000 from charter: * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there = is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a = home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what = firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? what makes this different from: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ now on the RFC editor queue. cheers, Ole From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 26 04:31:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1C63A6AC1 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.352 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fygEkzTvPRZv for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E43E3A6AB0 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:31:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=JIgc22Uemm3iwyugRHhnik7NHEK8fJS+QXNH5FwbQTjZNiOxP/Mo8zNj mPs2zXk5L0OfUUjiZ6CeRz0O09IZPDf/keVS2JfHOrpptRTYxrwqweapw 2XWOSliHdFQkEe3; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282822334; x=1314358334; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Thu,=2026=20Aug=202010=2011:32:1 1=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20Ole=20Troan=20|CC:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20<3b6542c2-f437-401f-b255-55c9f7d3 1556>|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-5 11311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20; bh=rlLGfHPzbGqD48k71pVm8QJYc3RJVG12gqJXVvGci+o=; b=J3dxJWIaqL0z7DeO1Fz4wAHi9XEMs+0KdicawxI/3pReaBMFc+gq9oui qhK8h7QMYSVPtMebJMJDmMS38ujc5P3Puxd03zivivdsav/lL7OF8iwlv 2w8ObPrecxG1O9B; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="20969082" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 12:32:12 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:32:12 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLRQ/RXMTWXApoGkWZkBVqkvVN35LzicKA Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:32:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3b6542c2-f437-401f-b255-55c9f7d31556> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:31:42 -0000 > why should a home network be restricted to a "cascading" topology? as opp= osed to configured in an arbitrary topology. Other than multi-homed, what other topologies except cascading did you have= in mind? Would "daisy-chained" have been a better term than "cascading" ? [My intent was to include in our scope topologies where additional devices = sit _in path_ but inside the consumer network, e.g. a wireless gateway (not= AP/bridge) sat on the LAN. The previous text effectively restricted the s= cope to devices sat on the consumer/provider demarcation boundary]. Ray From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 26 04:42:30 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3FD3A67BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:42:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.364 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cp+S68K2gnI6 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4987E3A6858 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=Ao+ktuKDWDa0E3i75bO6bgZGB4gUr1krZVNG2YYs2qZhi+yH8QmOc/Lj TcMrynjP3dZoIiJR4cW20aDHZcD8E77vyaaOx6J4K4HzEs0Cmqd9Rt/oQ lbEdJy+TBk2gzMZ; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282822982; x=1314358982; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Thu,=2026=20Aug=202010=2011:42:5 2=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<3A7505A8-1561-48C1-8B75-3164A28F 811A@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20Ole=20Troan=20,=20Jari=20Arkko=20|CC:=20"ho megate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201. 0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<21ec52d7-6b22-4b2a-817f-442a01e19d95> |In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311 ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20<33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-2 5589320BB31@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20; bh=yWrkqy87VP9CVHvLCSqw/sTp6PNBr1usdBoXJ6ZXrjw=; b=wAsr/hgkPxuKEuqesFcVF13h/nGiaSH2xROoIewCD5nFV4HzXneQlkAG /b+iF0fZlOAnRtubDJKKKpgcJ3ItoigAQZJ1N8A8cExAmOmYS/f2xaSys WbPjvQnx6bDllzy; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="26903288" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 12:42:54 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:42:54 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Ole Troan , Jari Arkko Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLRQGl9Q82DnalKEKecXcVxGaVyJLzhRgAgAAHwgA= Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:42:52 +0000 Message-ID: <3A7505A8-1561-48C1-8B75-3164A28F811A@nominet.org.uk> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21ec52d7-6b22-4b2a-817f-442a01e19d95> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:42:30 -0000 On 26 Aug 2010, at 12:15, Ole Troan wrote: > from charter: >=20 > * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there = is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a hom= e gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewallin= g functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? >=20 > what makes this different from: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ >=20 > now on the RFC editor queue. That text was part of a major proposed rewrite from Jari Arkko (message to = Homegate list 29th June 11:36 GMT). Jari - are you able to address this question? kind regards, Ray From mpaalvas@cisco.com Thu Aug 26 05:55:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8503A6AC0 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90a8v79mBwEN for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2641C3A6986 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMYAdkxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACgQ3GecZtbhTcEjHU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="151951354" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 12:55:53 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QCtrYF007183; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:55:53 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-112.cisco.com ([144.254.74.87]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:55:52 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:55:51 +0200 Message-ID: <6566F4FA1F57D54DA2E2F086CD39606B02590771@XMB-AMS-112.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3A7505A8-1561-48C1-8B75-3164A28F811A@nominet.org.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLRQGl9Q82DnalKEKecXcVxGaVyJLzhRgAgAAHwgCAACPGwA== References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> <3A7505A8-1561-48C1-8B75-3164A28F811A@nominet.org.uk> From: "Mario Paalvast (mpaalvas)" To: "Ray Bellis" , "Ole Troan" , "Jari Arkko" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2010 12:55:52.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[03FA93C0:01CB451E] Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:55:22 -0000 Please note that "Home Gateways" often include bridging functionality as well. This is typically the case with ADSL CPE's deployed in a multi PVC environment. In other words it is not a routing device only Best regards Mario Paalvast -----Original Message----- From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray Bellis Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:43 To: Ole Troan; Jari Arkko Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update On 26 Aug 2010, at 12:15, Ole Troan wrote: > from charter: >=20 > * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? >=20 > what makes this different from: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ >=20 > now on the RFC editor queue. That text was part of a major proposed rewrite from Jari Arkko (message to Homegate list 29th June 11:36 GMT). Jari - are you able to address this question? kind regards, Ray _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Thu Aug 26 06:16:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E6F3A67A4 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TmzRnpgapnFP for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054663A6874 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1315689ewy.31 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=l8ilNNxVMsx+AqCy56cqf8F5mjspkQ61ThGRLEsWuAg=; b=tjeYadlP6Rg2mgnjnhPrInWdGR6LUklkkJxpM2K2e+bH+eUxODmBRZrqdXt7ikM7cY DIxUkK0ZVPSUfiaQ52sLeaEl/SvtS2eJNDY+dyG385zixgDpGrvf7ctTCmFCPPBNBL2k +Lm3tr0kg+AqtQr4UgWIqTIi+PHgfRa5iBSBM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=Drj8LiJxb6v/tDgyaJ9DzslZaZ59TEW28ktcsBzeUryeiFJ1M+je/jelwsRPBmanpJ /K1FIksRMEltwQkMZjmCm3gpZXDOU8Ap3y3xGO5NY6xUEeehcY10Mft7z7LDJOzIpVgG kIr7/6Au6q2QZ4sU1zn/2dFN8NN+8zgHa0c6w= Received: by 10.213.101.76 with SMTP id b12mr7233765ebo.26.1282828598522; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-136.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm4037726eeh.21.2010.08.26.06.16.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:16:34 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:16:09 -0000 Ray, >> why should a home network be restricted to a "cascading" topology? as = opposed to configured in an arbitrary topology. >=20 >=20 > Other than multi-homed, what other topologies except cascading did you = have in mind? Would "daisy-chained" have been a better term than = "cascading" ? what about looped or directed graph topologies? e.g: /--|R|---|H |R| \--|R|---|H /--|R|---|H |R| | \--|R|---|H > [My intent was to include in our scope topologies where additional = devices sit _in path_ but inside the consumer network, e.g. a wireless = gateway (not AP/bridge) sat on the LAN. The previous text effectively = restricted the scope to devices sat on the consumer/provider demarcation = boundary]. that I agree with. just unsure if we should restrict _how_ those devices = could be plugged together. cheers, Ole= From mbaugher@cisco.com Thu Aug 26 06:17:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9F13A67E2 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:17:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_HOME=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VWEmC5tqsO9W for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809B23A6830 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGYGdkyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACgQ3GfAJtbhTcEhDqFSA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="274748417" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 13:18:22 +0000 Received: from dhcp184-48-82-203.fre.sjc.wayport.net (sjc-vpn7-14.cisco.com [10.21.144.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QDIIxG002817; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:20 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:18:17 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <958FF7B9-1CD6-46E4-81B7-BC31D4BDE2A7@cisco.com> References: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> To: David Harrington X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:17:50 -0000 We are talking about two different types devices, I think. One type of = gateway is installed and managed by a a provider on the customer's = premises. The second type is a retail product. We could call both by = the same name. I don't have a problem with this so long as we make a = distinction between the two cases, which have different requirements in = many ways. Mark On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, David Harrington wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Here is a comment from another non-WG mailing list that seems relevant > to homegate discussions.=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >=20 > we have too many names for these things... :-) in v6ops, it's being > called a CPE Router, and in other venues its being called a > residential gateway. I prefer calling it a "CPE Router" because the > same router and the same infrastructure is often used for things that > aren't homes - what are often called Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) > networks > (http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Small-Office-H > ome-Office). The next step up is often called Small/Medium Business or > SMB > (http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci10 > 05201,00.html), and would have a higher throughput and often higher > cost version of the same CPE.=20 > >=20 > It would be hard to achieve consistent terminology across SDOs, but > can we please develop consistent terminology across IETF WGs at least? >=20 >=20 > Since there has been considerable discussion of what a home gateway is > and what a home network is, it is obvious different people call > similar things by different names. If you cannot agree on the > terminology, you probably won't agree on the technologies and > practices. I recommend a terminology section (or document) that > reflects already-in-use terminology in the IETF and consensus for WG > terms, as part of the charter deliverables, and then have any WG > documents use consistent terminology.=20 >=20 > dbh >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 26 07:42:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFE13A67ED for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.375 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id euHKVD-hBrWg for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726C33A69CE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:42:15 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=RTXdUnDLuIJaqYm0zdkfYRJMo58rIxQdP6BNLAI/9kzAjJCPXPtZah1Y ScV+balflxYAg/V2hm4sHmRN8vM6WOK16hbA5AKQZlcm8VQDiVIbIgBmy QxMbBAafnlDWp2z; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282833769; x=1314369769; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Thu,=2026=20Aug=202010=2014:42:4 5=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD 6579@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20Ole=20Troan=20|CC:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-5 11311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20; bh=9yAyeiTXhjHemglCW5r+Dd7XM307iG2oT1gJDpW311Y=; b=C8dMQdBLOkz8P5jdTye5njnTQCdgf0U3YakiU3LZkAxeO9kC2M22yPTF jDSDSNJkxKeUqNpv36qIIUq1e43pBDRiQ1cMubTj+NbSNB/yu/9BVs6eA UO1+orr16TdwS4f; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,273,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="26906979" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2010 15:42:47 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:42:47 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLRQ/RXMTWXApoGkWZkBVqkvVN35LzicKAgAAdKgCAABgUgA== Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:42:45 +0000 Message-ID: <8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD6579@nominet.org.uk> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:42:17 -0000 On 26 Aug 2010, at 14:16, Ole Troan wrote: > that I agree with. just unsure if we should restrict _how_ those devices = could be plugged together. I don't see the new text as _restrictive. It removes the definition of the= home gateway being the demarc point, and also mentions that they might be = daisy-chained. Ray From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Thu Aug 26 08:27:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DB63A67BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRnhnyhy45f5 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7BD3A6852 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so1467012eyd.31 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:28:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=5TaSEAqFg7KQ21mvndRIpZY0NHmEpyjHg0Ffx0cN2Is=; b=RNkfHzTtKdDjA9h5Cl3gOc5cr+Hhkd5IV1WssjuxTln0nWsTNIimBNbTNBdMgnCmze Qu2n+UcKTXPzo1JmneUBIss0Hx/mbTj7QE6MQyrbF0OJkCGLW/+ju6lkLPq/zXVoJ9Fz V/aNDk2n80MUzAFt7xOdH8ZyNVkonRlW2KRAs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=wVT40bzdePqkLQIjMmaVBCEH9WNEiKOIRcN4UmhgFLUVw6dquiJRhqWQnf6fyREplD Ayw2occGdgmQImNEGWe93S5JQJ4icP7puRDMZZfoRaX/r8G2B7p4irWZ8XInItNz7fXE GSnnbmb2kt5tpkhb1QSw7xKCibONOIZtibbho= Received: by 10.213.52.10 with SMTP id f10mr7225584ebg.60.1282836508397; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-10-61-109-136.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm4225557eeh.11.2010.08.26.08.28.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD6579@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:28:25 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD6579@nominet.org.uk> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:27:58 -0000 Ray, >> that I agree with. just unsure if we should restrict _how_ those = devices could be plugged together. >=20 > I don't see the new text as _restrictive. It removes the definition = of the home gateway being the demarc point, and also mentions that they = might be daisy-chained. a daisy chain is a linear topology (or a ring). why should any home = network have to look like that? and why do we even need to say that in a = charter. just state that a home network with multiple routers, internal = as well as "border" routers are within scope. cheers, Ole From ajs@shinkuro.com Thu Aug 26 08:31:35 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B237A3A6852 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:31:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y2JCF2m4QGSk for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2333A6843 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (external.shinkuro.com [66.92.164.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58AC41ECB41D for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:32:03 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homegate@ietf.org Message-ID: <20100826153203.GC19496@shinkuro.com> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD6579@nominet.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:31:35 -0000 On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:28:25PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote: > in a charter. just state that a home network with multiple routers, > internal as well as "border" routers are within scope. That seems better to me. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 26 08:32:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C92B3A6994 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.313, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFiuZ65lPSJy for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7156B3A697D for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QFXCMc034823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:25:13 -0700 To: "homegate@ietf.org" From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Ray Bellis Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:32:42 -0000 At 9:32 AM +0000 8/26/10, Ray Bellis wrote: >Based on off-list feedback and the comments from David Harrington, I've also now amended the "proposed deliverables" section such that the _initial_ deliverable is a single recommendations document for dual-stack home gateways. Thanks, Ray. With that change, and the one calling out that this is for v4v6 dual stack, I strongly support the formation of this WG. For the rest of the folks on this mailing list: the IESG might need to see a lot more interest from this thread before they will approve the formation of the WG. There were a zillion people in the room at the Maastricht BoF, and many different folks got to the mic with opinions. If a good handful of you say "I'm interested in the WG being formed and am willing to do real work*", that would help the IESG determine the level of interest. I'm interested in the WG being formed and am willing to do real work! --Paul Hoffman * reviewing revs of the document, proposing new wording for it, proposing changed wording for it, writing whole sections, researching current and planned capabilities in products you work on, coordinating with other WGs in which you are active, and so on. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 26 08:32:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E763A67BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.126 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-C6C-zIO3O3 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964A93A697D for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QFXCMe034823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:28:11 -0700 To: Ole Troan , Ray Bellis From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:32:50 -0000 At 1:15 PM +0200 8/26/10, Ole Troan wrote: >from charter: > >* Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? > >what makes this different from: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ > >now on the RFC editor queue. That document is a small subset of what has been proposed so far. Other topics include default filtering, DHCPv4, application-layer gateways, management interfaces, which pieces should be user-settable, ... --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 26 08:33:08 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36E63A67BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.756 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.310, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id faNULQGLo4nu for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E16F3A69B4 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QFXCMg034823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <958FF7B9-1CD6-46E4-81B7-BC31D4BDE2A7@cisco.com> References: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> <958FF7B9-1CD6-46E4-81B7-BC31D4BDE2A7@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:30:01 -0700 To: Mark Baugher , David Harrington From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:33:08 -0000 At 6:18 AM -0700 8/26/10, Mark Baugher wrote: >We are talking about two different types devices, I think. One type of gateway is installed and managed by a a provider on the customer's premises. The second type is a retail product. We could call both by the same name. I don't have a problem with this so long as we make a distinction between the two cases, which have different requirements in many ways. Fully agree that they should both be included and considered differently where appropriate. However, this probably does not need to be called out in the charter. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Thu Aug 26 08:41:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F183A6994 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:41:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJBfv0YD0CsT for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2809E3A6852 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h109.viagenie.ca (h109.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.109]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3723C20DC3 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C768B2B.1080004@viagenie.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:41:31 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; fr; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: <616BCF89C45846F7AC33C410C9CDBFE3@23FX1C1> <958FF7B9-1CD6-46E4-81B7-BC31D4BDE2A7@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [homegate] FW: [v4tov6transition] two questions about address allocation whiledesigning X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:04 -0000 Le 10-08-26 11:30, Paul Hoffman a écrit : > At 6:18 AM -0700 8/26/10, Mark Baugher wrote: >> We are talking about two different types devices, I think. One type of gateway is installed and managed by a a provider on the customer's premises. The second type is a retail product. We could call both by the same name. I don't have a problem with this so long as we make a distinction between the two cases, which have different requirements in many ways. > > Fully agree that they should both be included and considered differently where appropriate. However, this probably does not need to be called out in the charter. well, I disagree with that statement (no need to be called out in the charter). The two use-cases described are sufficiently different (and well-spread) that they influence many things in how HG are behaving. So I support the idea to include the difference in the charter to make crystal clear that both use-cases are different and need to be addressed. I remember many years ago the distinction we use in ngtrans/v6ops for managed and unmanaged networks. it shows different protocols and needs. Similar to me here. Marc. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca From hkirksey@motive.com Thu Aug 26 09:02:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3080C3A69D7 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OW2b1wJArOne for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F893A69B7 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o7QG3Oqa014887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:03:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o7QG3M6b003474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:03:24 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSB2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.138]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:03:23 -0500 From: "Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" To: Paul Hoffman , Ole Troan , Ray Bellis Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:03:22 -0500 Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: ActFNAcqgm26Mf4iRJ+2m61MzNUCqAAAfG7g Message-ID: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:02:56 -0000 I'm confused by the below comments. 1. Isn't default filtering in the scope of the simple security doc in progr= ess in v6Ops? 2. I believe there was a decision reached to exclude management of these de= vices during the bar BOF in Stockholm. Why is it listed below as something= "missing" that should be included in Homegate? 3. Are you really proposing that Homegate should tell product manufacturers= which device settings they should let a user control and which they should= n't? Not only is that a product implementation decision, pure and simple, = it's not the sort of thing you're likely to gain consensus on, and I'd defi= nitely argue it's out of the scope of the IETF. =20 4. What work would you propose doing on ALGs? Listing apps that should wor= k across them? TR-124 has a (somewhat dated to be sure) non-exhaustive lis= t in one of its appendices. I'm really not sure what else beyond that can = really be done on that topic.=20 Thanks, Heather=20 -----Original Message----- From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Paul Hoffman Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:28 AM To: Ole Troan; Ray Bellis Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update At 1:15 PM +0200 8/26/10, Ole Troan wrote: >from charter: > >* Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there i= s no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home= gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling= functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? > >what makes this different from: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ > >now on the RFC editor queue. That document is a small subset of what has been proposed so far. Other top= ics include default filtering, DHCPv4, application-layer gateways, managem= ent interfaces, which pieces should be user-settable, ... --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 26 09:20:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343DA3A69CB for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.514, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WmgrQ29HGvtp for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA73A6988 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QGLNw5038029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:21:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:21:21 -0700 To: "Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:20:53 -0000 At 11:03 AM -0500 8/26/10, Kirksey, Heather R (Heather) wrote: >I'm confused by the below comments. > >1. Isn't default filtering in the scope of the simple security doc in progress in v6Ops? Yes, for IPv6. That does not preclude us from including it in our document, either by reference or with amendments. We can also talk about filtering for IPv4, if desired. >2. I believe there was a decision reached to exclude management of these devices during the bar BOF in Stockholm. Why is it listed below as something "missing" that should be included in Homegate? There was lots of discussion of management during the virtual BoF before Maastricht, and some during the Masstricht BoF. I don't think this group has decided one way or another whether it wants to include management in a profile. >3. Are you really proposing that Homegate should tell product manufacturers which device settings they should let a user control and which they shouldn't? Not only is that a product implementation decision, pure and simple, it's not the sort of thing you're likely to gain consensus on, and I'd definitely argue it's out of the scope of the IETF. Here is a counter-example. If a manufacturer wants to include, for example, a DNS proxy that does not support DNSSEC, I believe an argument can be made that an IETF recommendation would be that the user should be able to turn off that proxy so that they can achieve better security. It is also extremely premature to predict consensus. We don't even have a WG yet so we don't know who the active participants will be. >4. What work would you propose doing on ALGs? Listing apps that should work across them? TR-124 has a (somewhat dated to be sure) non-exhaustive list in one of its appendices. I'm really not sure what else beyond that can really be done on that topic. Some ALGs have been found to cause security problems, for example by not supporting modern algorithms that are supported in many deployed servers. The dated, non-exhaustive list in TR-124 might not address this in a way that supports the IETF goals of interoperability and security. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Thu Aug 26 12:59:37 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3763A69B4 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbS+SzWXeCsm for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5823A68EF for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so1737234eyd.31 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=mZgAAHEF6CYEbhY1QkXnmF6gBG7DzOO5z2N4pyrPtwM=; b=G9Q/4VRCsPzPY5LMF6WJsPPOm5IUTj+Cx8sDWEZ7+Pc6b4T+HL/5Vh4drpZks1R5yP VUfvNHqLWYsr+iS0DSe4pez7EfWRc7EbKdY6BLFSOyEQkuo+pbPBPfMHWlOLadUh26Uv sbtD+T0yIzca7oIU+4ETnAxTIWp9VMSL5rrhM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=lfiYZTxY9yhapJSmVcz+8fOGRRAYZWeranBpAHhS8AuXN5ODH0xURu6kOZ+sRYanLD nF1iFpS0+eIcEHz1zQIXhYK3y/O3IpmDCwojwsfG3hFvCda9QhSqZcglzGOaHnDxc07e nROF6Ze7Sr+s6KHRIELPvMm/PWEL0Vym+DYWk= Received: by 10.213.82.11 with SMTP id z11mr29808ebk.29.1282852807542; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-10-55-85-58.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm4630441eei.13.2010.08.26.13.00.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:00:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EC8A54A-EA8C-47D7-B427-E6D11610FD1D@employees.org> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: Ray Bellis , "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:59:37 -0000 On Aug 26, 2010, at 17:28 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 1:15 PM +0200 8/26/10, Ole Troan wrote: >> from charter: >>=20 >> * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, = there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary = on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what = firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? >>=20 >> what makes this different from: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ >>=20 >> now on the RFC editor queue. >=20 > That document is a small subset of what has been proposed so far. = Other topics include default filtering, DHCPv4, application-layer = gateways, management interfaces, which pieces should be user-settable, = ... how do you think this document compares with the above bullet in the = charter? I did not want to make any comment about other parts of the charter. cheers, Ole= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Aug 26 13:18:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22413A6ACE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.314 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUnGXKBlXTXH for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3CD3A6AEC for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7QKIwmB049954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4EC8A54A-EA8C-47D7-B427-E6D11610FD1D@employees.org> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> <4EC8A54A-EA8C-47D7-B427-E6D11610FD1D@employees.org> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:57 -0700 To: Ole Troan From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Ray Bellis , "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:18:29 -0000 At 10:00 PM +0200 8/26/10, Ole Troan wrote: >On Aug 26, 2010, at 17:28 , Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> At 1:15 PM +0200 8/26/10, Ole Troan wrote: >>> from charter: >>> >>> * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? >>> >>> what makes this different from: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router/ >>> >>> now on the RFC editor queue. >> >> That document is a small subset of what has been proposed so far. Other topics include default filtering, DHCPv4, application-layer gateways, management interfaces, which pieces should be user-settable, ... > >how do you think this document compares with the above bullet in the charter? >I did not want to make any comment about other parts of the charter. Whoops, sorry, I didn't catch that part. I can think of two things off the top of my head that an eventual WG might want to include over and above a pointer to that RFC-to-be: - firewalling functionality, as the charter says - subsetting of and/or modifying of the requirements from that document based on the model of no user control of these devices. If we do this in the document, I believe we absolutely must explicitly justify doing so in the document itself. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From lee@asgard.org Thu Aug 26 14:14:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DCB3A6B12 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1Bp4CoW4Gbh for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr2.networksolutionsemail.com (omr2.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EA53A6B1E for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr7 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr2.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o7QL9ofk028759 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:09:50 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr7 smtp.user=lee@asgard.org; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org Received: from [204.235.115.164] ([204.235.115.164:41315] helo=HDC00027112) by cm-omr7 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id FE/12-13420-E18D67C4; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:09:50 -0400 From: "Lee Howard" To: "'Ole Troan'" , "'Ray Bellis'" References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <8F4A25D5-5C16-4382-8CD6-3B5801AD6579@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:09:50 -0400 Message-ID: <000701cb4563$058ee200$10aca600$@org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: ActFM1fd0iklnc7mQ6aWGqdneR+9vQAKHllQ Content-Language: en-us Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:14:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole > Troan > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:28 AM > To: Ray Bellis > Cc: homegate@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update > > Ray, > > >> that I agree with. just unsure if we should restrict _how_ those devices could be plugged > together. > > > > I don't see the new text as _restrictive. It removes the definition of the home gateway > being the demarc point, and also mentions that they might be daisy-chained. > > a daisy chain is a linear topology (or a ring). why should any home network have to look like > that? and why do we even need to say that in a charter. just state that a home network with > multiple routers, internal as well as "border" routers are within scope. Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers in an arbitrary topology. But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be scoped; we have to stipulate a maximum level of complexity. Let's limit ourselves to cases that cover 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies. Lee > > cheers, > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com Fri Aug 27 13:26:59 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205D53A67F4; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:26:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvn3XG2IKwSl; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx01.videotron.com (mx01.videotron.com [24.201.243.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221EF3A68F3; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <000701cb4563$058ee200$10aca600$@org> To: lee@asgard.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006 Message-ID: From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:27:06 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on DOMMTL11/SRV/GVL(Release 7.0.2FP1|January 10, 2007) at 2010-08-27 16:27:07, Serialize complete at 2010-08-27 16:27:07 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0070679D8525778C_=" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:44:55 -0700 Cc: homegate-bounces@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:26:59 -0000 Message en plusieurs parties au format MIME --=_alternative 0070679D8525778C_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers in an > arbitrary topology. But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be scoped; we have to > stipulate a maximum level of complexity. Let's limit ourselves to cases that cover > 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies. > > Lee +1 on this. "tree" or "loop-free" topologies are also good names. It would mean a LAN IGP is out of scope (but not a WAN IGP). JF --=_alternative 0070679D8525778C_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


> Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers in an
> arbitrary topology.  But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be scoped; we have to
> stipulate a maximum level of complexity.  Let's limit ourselves to cases that cover
> 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies.
>
> Lee

+1 on this.
"tree" or "loop-free" topologies are also good names. It would mean a LAN IGP is out of scope (but not a WAN IGP).

JF --=_alternative 0070679D8525778C_=-- From ietfdbh@comcast.net Fri Aug 27 15:56:20 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DA63A6949 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:56:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.442 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.332, BAYES_05=-1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMysxcQiAtaX for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD9A3A68CE for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zPEG1e0080mv7h05Dawr18; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:56:51 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zawq1e00B2JQnJT3XawqGH; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:56:51 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Paul Hoffman'" , References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:55:58 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-Index: ActFNAJWPg/wD8BnS9ipwWCkshU80wBA5unA Cc: 'Ray Bellis' Subject: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:56:20 -0000 Hi, One concern that I have is whether we have enough committed resources to justify a WG. My impression is that there are many people on this list, and many who were at the meeting in Maastricht, from other SDOs. Their goal is to ensure that overlap and conflict between the IETF work and their SDO's work is minimized. I have a real concern that once we approve a WG with a charter that is reasonably conflict-free, these people will "go home" to their SDO, satisfied that they have achieved their mission. But the mission of the WG will not have been achieved. I would like to see statements of commitment from people who are willing to work at achieving the WG's goals. I specifically would like to see volunteers for editing, and for committed reviewing of each revision of the WG document(s)*. I would also appreciate if you identified yourself if you realize that, as an active member of another SDO, you will not have the time to commit to this IETF work because you will be busy working on your own SDO's work. Maybe you can do an occasional review to check that the document doesn't get into conflicting territory, but making a more time-consuming commitment wouldn't be reasonable. That might help us get a feel for the size of the "real" WG resources. As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine whether the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. Thanks, David Harrington Director, IETF Transport Area ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com +1 603 828 1401 (cell) * I'm a realist. Day-job pressures might prevent reviewing every revision, but I would expect a commitment for most of the revisions. If the WG chooses to eventually produce multiple documents, I would expect that those commitments might morph into commitments to review certain documents. > -----Original Message----- > From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:25 AM > To: homegate@ietf.org > Cc: Ray Bellis > Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update > > At 9:32 AM +0000 8/26/10, Ray Bellis wrote: > >Based on off-list feedback and the comments from David > Harrington, I've also now amended the "proposed deliverables" > section such that the _initial_ deliverable is a single > recommendations document for dual-stack home gateways. > > Thanks, Ray. With that change, and the one calling out that > this is for v4v6 dual stack, I strongly support the formation > of this WG. > > For the rest of the folks on this mailing list: the IESG > might need to see a lot more interest from this thread before > they will approve the formation of the WG. There were a > zillion people in the room at the Maastricht BoF, and many > different folks got to the mic with opinions. If a good > handful of you say "I'm interested in the WG being formed and > am willing to do real work*", that would help the IESG > determine the level of interest. > > I'm interested in the WG being formed and am willing to do real work! > > --Paul Hoffman > > * reviewing revs of the document, proposing new wording for > it, proposing changed wording for it, writing whole sections, > researching current and planned capabilities in products you > work on, coordinating with other WGs in which you are active, > and so on. > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Sat Aug 28 03:05:31 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D273A6852 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.280, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZ+aeIYltd6k for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065E83A67C3 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2728990ewy.31 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:06:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=Ejtv+fjY1jqrXKl/4d46ojSxGfBkzK8pDeD2rCSx8Dg=; b=Xf4DGCDB2mA0q64zkS7/PSRiWD+u+XOsvSMOJ4mKlL7BY1zFfdenttcegkkD5R7dgw q/CYDrPufhDUqX4GMUiKJCekzVeWJxfjR5qr3QiXMQbzK7sGjT8QOjLy1oL+t/r1TNZf L8FSPAUfYmDuPIpHuySb/I2sHcaVOj04LNtS4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=w/e8lDjTJWLCvaBfTs2WecPqWtgKce6bkGVw630NoLTQApQv9w05azeWgLTzUwtSkZ n8H4o5OVRyUwdMvKQlQVymdWk8YLqRnKPjUnWjsSgcl4ZklqbbpfJjmpmZTyi10XscxP qKtqS1k7NmYZFs7mBoeqhFHwM3LD0Bp8qs1Rg= Received: by 10.213.19.211 with SMTP id c19mr3864289ebb.93.1282989961198; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-10-61-97-110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm7862937eeh.9.2010.08.28.03.05.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: Ole Troan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:05:56 +0200 Message-Id: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> To: homegate@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:05:31 -0000 the current charter proposes to work on the following problems: * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding = logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly = under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for = instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on = interactive traffic. * Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects = DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these = designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for instance = when employing TCP transport or EDNS0. The problem is that while these = complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming more common for = various reasons. * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there = is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a = home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what = firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? * While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically works = well in the gateways, they do not always support the current timeout = recommendations or additional transport protocols. I would claim that the IPv6 bullet is solved through the v6ops work. = that the DNS bullet is covered largely by 5625. are we left with making = a recommendation on NATs and choice of queuing algorithm? that's not = something I think justifies a working group. in contrast here is the list of problems I'd like to work on: (this is largely the punt list from the Basic IPv6 CE router work). 1. Brave New World - every host is suddenly multi-homed (IPv4 and IPv6) - or an IPv6 only host is behind a NAT64 - or an IPv4 host is behind NAT444 - Happy Eyeballs 2. Service Discovery - Standardised service discovery in the home. 3. DNS - Reverse zone for delegated prefix? - Mechanism to delegate authority? 4. Multicast - Multicast routing in the home in case of a routed home or just MLD proxy 5. Routed home - Zero configuration routers / plug and play - Arbitrary complex topology - Prefix assignment - Distribution of other configuration information / policy - Unicast routing 6. IPv6 transition mechanisms - 6rd, DS-lite, NAT64 7. Firewall pinholing / PCP 8. Security - Firewall pinholing - End2end compliant security? (What's the point of IPv6 if we still break end2end with NAT44 = equivalent security?) 9. QoS - Require QoS into the home, rather than just better queueing on the = CPE? cheers, Ole= From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Sat Aug 28 03:05:46 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF843A6856 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8-Q7KmP-Uqs for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746D63A6855 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:05:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=eGiRjscmjNbNakBgEg+OmNkE8fPU/crGb9OBVRBOXxJc6sTSoxttBoE8 SpdV+ISLl2xNH14zW9hqhUsDo7kDMYTyDvANmP275JvRXiKq2/vFLtQDq b6rkmgryBVgFILQ; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1282989976; x=1314525976; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20volunteering=20=20to=20work=20on=20home gate=20WG=20documents|Date:=20Sat,=2028=20Aug=202010=2010 :05:09=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<73f17bc7-8918-43b2-b310-d0382fdac54a> |In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nom inet.org.uk><33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet .org.uk>=0D=0A=20 =0D=0A=20; bh=jlNJnpgO8G/gFjsEpNxtMY22s5uSrFWF7WRTY5gf9Qw=; b=Cwl5+KzFOoER9QJYe4+gTDbJ3xKJ+e27SAZCHsc35CyjkDQY84mafcjq W5TNN02C+56u+98DF2UPcRCfP86ajuGPnjcfBcCxJgaqZG9+jAmc3AOtL kOuzvK7WZMDjCc/; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,283,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="26952199" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2010 11:06:15 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:06:14 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: volunteering to work on homegate WG documents Thread-Index: AQHLRjskxebOpsG+S0eWokoYHsaRXpL2k8SA Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:05:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <73f17bc7-8918-43b2-b310-d0382fdac54a> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:05:46 -0000 On 27 Aug 2010, at 23:55, David Harrington wrote: > As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine whether > the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. Echoing David's concerns - it would be a *great* help if those prepared to = help could stand up and be counted ASAP. Timing for establishing a working group for Beijing is rapidly running out. Ray From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Aug 29 13:55:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F4C3A68AD for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIUhyIYD8eO6 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A303A68A5 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7TKuMgd030389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:56:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:56:20 -0700 To: Ole Troan , homegate@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:55:54 -0000 At 12:05 PM +0200 8/28/10, Ole Troan wrote: >the current charter proposes to work on the following problems: > > * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on interactive traffic. > >* Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for instance when employing TCP transport or EDNS0. The problem is that while these complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming more common for various reasons. > >* Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? > >* While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically works well in the gateways, they do not always support the current timeout recommendations or additional transport protocols. > >I would claim that the IPv6 bullet is solved through the v6ops work. that the DNS bullet is covered largely by 5625. are we left with making a recommendation on NATs and choice of queuing algorithm? that's not something I think justifies a working group. However, you have listed an amalgam of RFCs instead of the one that is proposed in the charter. Do you feel that "the v6ops work" is specific enough for a home gateway vendor or purchaser to be able to determine if a particular box meets the IETF recommendations? I strongly doubt it, but you might feel differently, given your significant involvement in "the v6ops work". I think just profiling "the v6ops work" would take a WG. Look at how much disagreement there has been even within the v6ops community on the content of those documents. >in contrast here is the list of problems I'd like to work on: >(this is largely the punt list from the Basic IPv6 CE router work). > >1. Brave New World > - every host is suddenly multi-homed (IPv4 and IPv6) > - or an IPv6 only host is behind a NAT64 > - or an IPv4 host is behind NAT444 > - Happy Eyeballs I think discussion of the first three bullets would be quite appropriate for the document coming from this WG. The fourth is also quite relevant for gateways with DNS proxies, and thus should be at least mentioned (maybe with a slightly different title...). >2. Service Discovery > - Standardised service discovery in the home. This doesn't seem as important to me because few gateways at the moment act as the service registry, nor prevent such discovery. >3. DNS > - Reverse zone for delegated prefix? > - Mechanism to delegate authority? Yes. >4. Multicast > - Multicast routing in the home in case of a routed home > or just MLD proxy I'm weak on this one: do home gateways participate in this? Should they? >5. Routed home > - Zero configuration routers / plug and play > - Arbitrary complex topology > - Prefix assignment > - Distribution of other configuration information / policy > - Unicast routing Yes >6. IPv6 transition mechanisms > - 6rd, DS-lite, NAT64 Yes >7. Firewall pinholing / PCP > >8. Security > - Firewall pinholing > - End2end compliant security? > (What's the point of IPv6 if we still break end2end with NAT44 equivalent > security?) Yes >9. QoS > - Require QoS into the home, rather than just better queueing on the CPE? Yes. For all those yeses, however, others might disagree, and I don't think these need to be in the charter. But they are absolutely reasonable fodder for the WG's main document. But there won't be a WG unless folks start speaking up to express interest. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From touch@isi.edu Mon Aug 30 15:23:26 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8B43A68D7 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKc-T3cwPApG for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BFF3A68D3 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [75.212.244.54] (54.sub-75-212-244.myvzw.com [75.212.244.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7UMN80j016539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7C2F45.9030601@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23:01 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:23:26 -0000 On 8/29/2010 1:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: ... >> 2. Service Discovery >> - Standardised service discovery in the home. > > This doesn't seem as important to me because few gateways at the > moment act as the service registry, nor prevent such discovery. > >> 3. DNS >> - Reverse zone for delegated prefix? >> - Mechanism to delegate authority? > > Yes. FWIW, #2 sometimes involves #3. Further, #3 is just a special case of #2. AFAICT, it's critical that this discussion involve service discovery issues. Joe >> 9. QoS >> - Require QoS into the home, rather than just better queueing on the CPE? > > Yes. I didn't see "fair sharing", which is related to QoS, i.e., the expectation that these devices prevent a single connection from hogging the link (even if not congestion-controlled). That's important, IMO, to add. Joe From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Mon Aug 30 16:21:12 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A943A6891 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.273 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.274, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DgH+OvgcFyZ for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643A03A67EF for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so3792544ewy.31 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=/qEMU4uXIU1J5xpzyhE900UWndgOZMuPLPSoPetjGY4=; b=umf2clkTcqS65iIwLOd3DbHkACFZkX23aFX3nPI6wweid88KvhgazdEbeyCTLPm0ci /20F4VFdudfAdP5UeUk442irhSR1zQUIyOhCoWaTcmsBXb88lSpmkexXcwYInzU8OD7B fanio6/StPsfgeFOa2Tp3z+sYBMeauK2CK7Wc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=BboG6yM2p8Y3vyEO37rL9uKALcqU82zZslv/DtXAvzogQnno61hpjbhzm28R9HDfqu 4jbGKE+KSFFAyIdAw9wlK72kR0h43M7FG2r6dH+paIdvwSqQUpf6yPEr9vRbbSyA6jvL TGTPOnEWQ2upGi73ASD5cDh4+uw6av3kCV994= Received: by 10.213.35.1 with SMTP id n1mr9020835ebd.84.1283210497831; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-10-55-83-230.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm12941846eei.1.2010.08.30.16.21.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:21:33 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:21:13 -0000 Paul, >> the current charter proposes to work on the following problems: >>=20 >> * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding = logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly = under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for = instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on = interactive traffic. >>=20 >> * Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that = affects DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with = these designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for = instance when employing TCP transport or EDNS0. The problem is that = while these complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming more = common for various reasons. >>=20 >> * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, = there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary = on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what = firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? >>=20 >> * While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically = works well in the gateways, they do not always support the current = timeout recommendations or additional transport protocols. >>=20 >> I would claim that the IPv6 bullet is solved through the v6ops work. = that the DNS bullet is covered largely by 5625. are we left with making = a recommendation on NATs and choice of queuing algorithm? that's not = something I think justifies a working group. >=20 > However, you have listed an amalgam of RFCs instead of the one that is = proposed in the charter. Do you feel that "the v6ops work" is specific = enough for a home gateway vendor or purchaser to be able to determine if = a particular box meets the IETF recommendations? I strongly doubt it, = but you might feel differently, given your significant involvement in = "the v6ops work". instead of RFC4294? that is also referenced from = draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router. and yes, I believe that work is specific enough. > I think just profiling "the v6ops work" would take a WG. Look at how = much disagreement there has been even within the v6ops community on the = content of those documents. I thought we agreed that "device profiles" as e.g what is done with = TR-124 in the BBF isn't something we want to do in the IETF. >=20 >> in contrast here is the list of problems I'd like to work on: >> (this is largely the punt list from the Basic IPv6 CE router work). >>=20 >> 1. Brave New World >> - every host is suddenly multi-homed (IPv4 and IPv6) >> - or an IPv6 only host is behind a NAT64 >> - or an IPv4 host is behind NAT444 >> - Happy Eyeballs >=20 > I think discussion of the first three bullets would be quite = appropriate for the document coming from this WG. The fourth is also = quite relevant for gateways with DNS proxies, and thus should be at = least mentioned (maybe with a slightly different title...). I think so too, and I'd rather have it mentioned in the charter. >> 2. Service Discovery >> - Standardised service discovery in the home. >=20 > This doesn't seem as important to me because few gateways at the = moment act as the service registry, nor prevent such discovery. I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be = restricted to one or more border routers. >> 3. DNS >> - Reverse zone for delegated prefix? >> - Mechanism to delegate authority? >=20 > Yes. >=20 >> 4. Multicast >> - Multicast routing in the home in case of a routed home >> or just MLD proxy >=20 > I'm weak on this one: do home gateways participate in this? Should = they? yes. both multicast internally in the home as well as multicast traffic = from the provider. e.g IPTV. >=20 >> 5. Routed home >> - Zero configuration routers / plug and play >> - Arbitrary complex topology >> - Prefix assignment >> - Distribution of other configuration information / policy >> - Unicast routing >=20 > Yes agree, but this needs new protocol work. which is explicitly stated in = the charter that the group should not do. >=20 >> 6. IPv6 transition mechanisms >> - 6rd, DS-lite, NAT64 >=20 > Yes >=20 >> 7. Firewall pinholing / PCP >>=20 >> 8. Security >> - Firewall pinholing >> - End2end compliant security? >> (What's the point of IPv6 if we still break end2end with NAT44 = equivalent >> security?) >=20 > Yes >=20 >> 9. QoS >> - Require QoS into the home, rather than just better queueing on the = CPE? >=20 > Yes. >=20 > For all those yeses, however, others might disagree, and I don't think = these need to be in the charter. But they are absolutely reasonable = fodder for the WG's main document. >=20 > But there won't be a WG unless folks start speaking up to express = interest. if the scope of the working group included all your yeses above, I would = express interest. right now I'm on the fence. cheers, Ole= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Aug 30 16:51:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCE33A6882 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHRyu46Xr-6z for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2313A6859 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7UNq1Yc014950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:52:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:52:00 -0700 To: Ole Troan From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:51:34 -0000 At 1:21 AM +0200 8/31/10, Ole Troan wrote: > > However, you have listed an amalgam of RFCs instead of the one that is proposed in the charter. Do you feel that "the v6ops work" is specific enough for a home gateway vendor or purchaser to be able to determine if a particular box meets the IETF recommendations? I strongly doubt it, but you might feel differently, given your significant involvement in "the v6ops work". > >instead of RFC4294? that is also referenced from draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router. >and yes, I believe that work is specific enough. OK, we disagree here. > > I think just profiling "the v6ops work" would take a WG. Look at how much disagreement there has been even within the v6ops community on the content of those documents. > >I thought we agreed that "device profiles" as e.g what is done with TR-124 in the BBF isn't something we want to do in the IETF. We didn't agree to that at all. Many people at the BoF agreed to the opposite by supporting a single profile document that could be used for "logo-izing". Of course, with no WG, that will be much harder to justify. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From mbaugher@cisco.com Mon Aug 30 17:09:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CE53A68C5 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:09:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mqXVvxi15uOU for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B0B3A68C4 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAL/ke0yrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACganGkCptwhTcEhDuFTg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,295,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="179047795" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 00:10:26 +0000 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7V0AQvW025271; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:10:26 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:10:25 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> To: Ole Troan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:09:56 -0000 Ole, On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be = restricted to one or more border routers. That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be = addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service = provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be = configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home = network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the = gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably = include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has = not yet standardized any home networking protocol. Mark From Etienne.GalletDeSanterre@telecom-bretagne.eu Tue Aug 31 08:27:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03323A6A1D for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55XAJXxCYcKk for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB8B3A6A3F for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id o7VFSJX8031491 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:28:19 +0200 Received: from l1.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (l1.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.3]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id o7VFRPo2031435 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:27:29 +0200 Received: from dhcp-salsa-i171.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (dhcp-salsa-i171.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [10.35.128.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by l1.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o7VFROQ5025385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:27:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:27:24 +0200 From: Etienne Gallet de Santerre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "homegate@ietf.org" References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:27:58 -0000 Hi all, I am a PhD student working on home network routing. I would appreciate if someone could clarify one point of the charter, which is partly discussed in this thread. I have some difficulties to understand the expression "home gateways may be cascaded" (maybe because English is not my natural language). Does it refers to a multihomed site with several (what-I-would-call) "parallels" home gateways interconnected inside the home network? Does it refers to some other devices inside the home network in addition to the one at its border? Something else? Thanks, Etienne Gallet de Santerre PhD student at TELECOM Bretagne Ray Bellis a écrit : > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE > > I've reworded the first paragraph, removing the text about demarcation, and introducing the concept of cascaded home gateways. I believe this addresses the question about whether the scope of the group includes other gateways sat _inside_ the customer network. > > I've also addressed Andrew Sullivan's nits, and removed the "IPv4" only work item, per the discussion in Maastricht. > > The reference to the TCP over DNS draft has also been updated, since that's just been published as RFC 5966. > > Ray > > > > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 31 09:03:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DC53A6827 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.395 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JxtOZFcw2rV for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx3.nominet.org.uk (mx3.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4C53A6846 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:03:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=7EkIb1bw6qTqOz6ymZ2WV/QJf7/r1MB6ezl/tkZNqFUCbSfA2ygaqT9V u7V2BaY2VDQGOn0YpEmrEl3Gw/yWwGW7uEG7FVkA7cMx+VF3YsHiYtlSs NPL+4NCTspD32EE; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1283270613; x=1314806613; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Tue,=2031=20Aug=202010=2016:03:2 8=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F38 9EAF@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20Etienne=20Gallet=20de=20Santer re=20|CC: =20"homegate@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20<28bce728-8e9d-417b-9eff-e34b6b47 d82f>|In-Reply-To:=20<4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.e u>|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@no minet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20<4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne. eu>; bh=pGHyUEzBzPVLkkIc5VUa510vWOu761x+L6m1KgDZ6dk=; b=S97cjSft8M0//T6PjVwhkGGdvxUpNJLTiBpK9OpJjlVrzD/k9QfSBYYC VChmkHOg4pFx22A3Ntu5A6ewvfomdnDp0kGZMVtZzk3jArRjw/Sii1DX0 ljY+XomBZngh3uO; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="27037045" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 17:03:30 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:03:30 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Etienne Gallet de Santerre Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLSSFossIEJoHo2E2rf7ewPkeiOZL7qRIA Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> In-Reply-To: <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28bce728-8e9d-417b-9eff-e34b6b47d82f> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:03:06 -0000 On 31 Aug 2010, at 16:27, Etienne Gallet de Santerre wrote: >=20 > I have some difficulties to understand the expression "home gateways may = be cascaded" (maybe because English is not my natural language). > Does it refers to a multihomed site with several (what-I-would-call) "par= allels" home gateways interconnected inside the home network? > Does it refers to some other devices inside the home network in addition = to the one at its border? > Something else? A better phrase may have been "daisy chained", e.g. where the "WAN" interfa= ce of a second unit is connected to one of the "LAN" interfaces of a first = unit - i.e. in series. Ray From jhw@apple.com Tue Aug 31 09:04:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0596D3A6846 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.81 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.789, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tlIwPpBf6CWd for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9443A6827 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD267AC4FCA1; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-b7cacae0000058e0-5b-4c7d2829567b Received: from [17.151.83.80] (Unknown_Domain [17.151.83.80]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 67.1B.22752.B282D7C4; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:04:54 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> To: Etienne Gallet de Santerre X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:04:32 -0000 On Aug 31, 2010, at 08:27, Etienne Gallet de Santerre wrote: > Does it refers to some other devices inside the home network in = addition to the one at its border? > Something else? It refers to a particularly short-sighted scheme for implementing home = networks comprising multiple subnets without the use of a proper = zero-configuration routing protocol. Instead, the bastions between home = subnets will be ordinary home gateways, which operate as hosts on one = interface and as default routers on their other interfaces, using some = underspecified and fragile method of delegating prefixes obtained from = their DHCP6 servers. It will be a usability disaster. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From kirk.erichsen@twcable.com Tue Aug 31 09:08:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FCA3A6827 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q6I39uQnHrRQ for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C047D3A69C3 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:08:08 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.11 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280721600"; d="scan'208";a="118010810" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.11]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 31 Aug 2010 12:08:39 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.38]) by PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.11]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:08:39 -0400 From: "Erichsen, Kirk" To: Ray Bellis , Etienne Gallet de Santerre Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:05:02 -0400 Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLSSFossIEJoHo2E2rf7ewPkeiOZL7qRIAgAARNPQ= Message-ID: <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu>, <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:08:10 -0000 Ray, Daisy-chained may not be helpful either. Parallel and serial are generally = well understood, the "cascade" refers to several routers in serial, e.g. on= e behind the other. Orthogonal to this discussion of "cascaded" vs. "daisy-= chained" vs. "serial" terminology, I recall a use case presented by BBF reg= arding multihoming (the parallel edge routers Etienne refers to below) as a= s either a requested inclusion into the scope, or an accepted inclusion int= o the scope for this phase, I don't recall which. -KE ________________________________________ From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ra= y Bellis [Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:03 AM To: Etienne Gallet de Santerre Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update On 31 Aug 2010, at 16:27, Etienne Gallet de Santerre wrote: > > I have some difficulties to understand the expression "home gateways may = be cascaded" (maybe because English is not my natural language). > Does it refers to a multihomed site with several (what-I-would-call) "par= allels" home gateways interconnected inside the home network? > Does it refers to some other devices inside the home network in addition = to the one at its border? > Something else? A better phrase may have been "daisy chained", e.g. where the "WAN" interfa= ce of a second unit is connected to one of the "LAN" interfaces of a first = unit - i.e. in series. Ray _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 31 09:19:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80DB3A68D9 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.403 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97K2Ijn89dGQ for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171943A67F3 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=tmnmdTqca54zVDCJGdOM6gRMdnrOTX3mwRT4d59yKxYoiFdPgHsOmt29 66an/mOm/o6ts++7mEFyYOO+7aCnGeuM2z2+PzBAE7qMEUqPEY5+2xlrf nrJg5S3VPUeeJwK; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1283271618; x=1314807618; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homegate]=20Minor=20proposed=20charter =20text=20update|Date:=20Tue,=2031=20Aug=202010=2016:20:1 5=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20james=20woodyatt=20|CC:=20"homegate@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|Content-ID:=20<0980ce71-9d6c-4745-b7d6-497ddcd7 5717>|In-Reply-To:=20<80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B584 4@apple.com>|References:=20<214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-51131 1ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20<4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom -bretagne.eu>=0D=0A=20<80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B58 44@apple.com>; bh=VqnbteVrtTfQCUbzoykvloxrVeg402gVqlmjFPA5DKI=; b=tU4QTlFL4z3CdVFkH1ZQLjiEsPws0wTseDXl6jqd5BkUDoFtfdHA+TpY OxA1Pdi/aEn75QDhG6LRETRVAE6pTU+rtl9zI6BsvVVvk6zq60yM/Xzag TESlTd3QExFqDZ/; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280703600"; d="scan'208";a="21109816" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 17:20:16 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:20:16 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: james woodyatt Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: AQHLSSFossIEJoHo2E2rf7ewPkeiOZL7qXkAgAAESoA= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:20:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0980ce71-9d6c-4745-b7d6-497ddcd75717> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:19:49 -0000 On 31 Aug 2010, at 17:04, james woodyatt wrote: >=20 > It refers to a particularly short-sighted scheme for implementing home ne= tworks comprising multiple subnets without the use of a proper zero-configu= ration routing protocol. Instead, the bastions between home subnets will b= e ordinary home gateways, which operate as hosts on one interface and as de= fault routers on their other interfaces, using some underspecified and frag= ile method of delegating prefixes obtained from their DHCP6 servers. >=20 > It will be a usability disaster. The draft charter does not _propose_ any such scheme, but recognises that d= aisy-chained / cascaded gateways is a known existing "dual gateway" configu= ration[*], and thus should be addressed by the proposed WG. FWIW, I think that solving dual-homed networking issues is _much_ harder th= an getting the single gateway (or serial gateways) stuff right. Is there a case for dual-homed (i.e. more than one gateway) being included = now, or should that maybe form a later phase of the work? Ray [*] the obvious example being a separate wireless gateway (as opposed to a = wireless bridge / AP) on the inside of another gateway. From vittalk@juniper.net Tue Aug 31 09:48:36 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D523A682F for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:48:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7+nMWlA5OvIm for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B54B3A69C3 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTH0yfHkwb3RIi2UIkv46UZdhg4xwh9jy@postini.com; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:49:02 PDT Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:46:12 -0700 From: Vittal Krishnamurthy To: Ray Bellis Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:46:11 -0700 Thread-Topic: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents Thread-Index: ActJLASzaDCgOJXvQh2n8eK+GnM/zA== Message-ID: <48E57987-2A1E-4702-AF01-C58EE0DD9A48@juniper.net> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <33EA2D11-1D61-4B13-A2EB-25589320BB31@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:48:38 -0000 Pls count me in.=20 Rgds -Vittal ----------------- Quick terse message from my iPhone (with typos!) On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: >=20 > On 27 Aug 2010, at 23:55, David Harrington wrote: >=20 >> As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine whether >> the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. >=20 > Echoing David's concerns - it would be a *great* help if those prepared t= o help could stand up and be counted ASAP. >=20 > Timing for establishing a working group for Beijing is rapidly running ou= t. >=20 > Ray >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From mark@townsley.net Tue Aug 31 10:28:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F253C3A6A79 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLE7BdDcdGAa for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F293A683C for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so4221546eyd.31 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.114.83 with SMTP id d19mr9009470ebq.7.1283275711557; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm14385560eei.1.2010.08.31.10.28.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:28:27 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:28:04 -0000 On 8/31/10 2:10 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > Ole, > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > >> I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be restricted to one or more border routers. > That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has not yet standardized any home networking protocol. IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", including not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the home network itself. This would presumably include some kind of zero-configuration routing protocol. Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the home gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient without spinning up an entire WG. - Mark > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From mark@townsley.net Tue Aug 31 10:42:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFD23A6842 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TT4-PW25Zj2q for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454AC3A6840 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so4206554ewy.31 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.114.2 with SMTP id c2mr7952633ebq.36.1283276601260; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm14406226eei.19.2010.08.31.10.43.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D3F36.1020600@townsley.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:43:18 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050507070302080104030605" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:42:52 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050507070302080104030605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/27/10 10:27 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com wrote: > > > > > Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers > in an > > arbitrary topology. But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be > scoped; we have to > > stipulate a maximum level of complexity. Let's limit ourselves to > cases that cover > > 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies. I think that for home networks its actually more important to be sure that fairly arbitrary apologies work as the targeted user base is certainly bound to break any rules we might try and lay down. Such a topology is certainly no worse than what we define for mobile ad hoc networks. - Mark > > > > Lee > > +1 on this. > "tree" or "loop-free" topologies are also good names. It would mean a > LAN IGP is out of scope (but not a WAN IGP). > > JF > > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate --------------050507070302080104030605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/27/10 10:27 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com wrote:



> Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers in an
> arbitrary topology.  But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be scoped; we have to
> stipulate a maximum level of complexity.  Let's limit ourselves to cases that cover
> 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies.
I think that for home networks its actually more important to be sure that fairly arbitrary apologies work as the targeted user base is certainly bound to break any rules we might try and lay down.

Such a topology is certainly no worse than what we define for mobile ad hoc networks.

- Mark

>
> Lee

+1 on this.
"tree" or "loop-free" topologies are also good names. It would mean a LAN IGP is out of scope (but not a WAN IGP).

JF 

_______________________________________________
homegate mailing list
homegate@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate

--------------050507070302080104030605-- From mark@townsley.net Tue Aug 31 10:52:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6643A684A for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:52:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9+B3U4SCyId for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE6A3A6847 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so4213901ewy.31 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.32.135 with SMTP id c7mr10464200ebd.2.1283277197622; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm14422773eeh.10.2010.08.31.10.53.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D418A.808@townsley.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:53:14 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:52:49 -0000 On 8/29/10 10:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> 2. Service Discovery >> - Standardised service discovery in the home. > > This doesn't seem as important to me because few gateways at the moment act as the service registry, nor prevent such discovery. As most discovery mechanisms operate either fully at L2 or use multicast DNS, gateways certainly do prevent such discovery when the home network is divided into different multicast domains. This is of course something that is actually quite common whenever you see more than one gateway, or even more than one SSID (local + guest). Also - advertising reachability for RG configuration itself would be very convenient to have as a service, rather than relying on a numeric address or even well-known DNS name to be typed into a web browser. - Mark From palm@broadcom.com Tue Aug 31 11:06:31 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738A63A69E2 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Richg5eHoIS for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596FA3A6A69 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:49 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: D3C04415-6FA8-4F2C-93C1-920E106A2031 Received: from mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (10.11.16.101) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:08:07 -0700 Received: from [10.12.6.237] (dhcp-10-12-6-237.broadcom.com [10.12.6.237]) by mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8F669CA8; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D44B9.4060307@broadcom.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:06:49 -0700 From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mark Townsley" References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> X-WSS-ID: 60639B333ES2547482-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:06:31 -0000 Do we really expect true routing inside the home? Aren't we really talking about bridging and switching which is already well covered by existing specifications, e.g. IEEE 802.1 On 8/31/2010 10:28 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > On 8/31/10 2:10 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: >> Ole, >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> >>> I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be restricted to one or more border routers. >> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has not yet standardized any home networking protocol. > IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in > Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", including > not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the home > network itself. This would presumably include some kind of > zero-configuration routing protocol. > > Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are > participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the home > gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + > whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient > without spinning up an entire WG. > > - Mark > >> Mark -- Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: palm@kiwin.com Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256 Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu palm@broadcom.com s.palm@ieee.org palm@itu.ch spalm@cs.cmu.edu palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp From vittalk@juniper.net Tue Aug 31 11:11:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0704E3A683A for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id at5IAbBvU0dN for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302593A69E9 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTH1FycLSg4Z1GOCsKuWyCw7mPw3r/wyS@postini.com; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:11:23 PDT Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:56:52 -0700 From: Vittal Krishnamurthy To: Mark Townsley , "homegate@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:56:50 -0700 Thread-Topic: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update Thread-Index: ActJNAYITB/9+3/NTNuCVCIdKn7JZAAAV6dA Message-ID: <3E6CB99C2F38864E95D6AA1B707C0C70573B12EED7@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> References: <4C7D3F36.1020600@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: <4C7D3F36.1020600@townsley.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3E6CB99C2F38864E95D6AA1B707C0C70573B12EED7EMBX02HQjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:11:00 -0000 --_000_3E6CB99C2F38864E95D6AA1B707C0C70573B12EED7EMBX02HQjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a more basic question. Are we focusing on the home gateway to the external world OR are we focusin= g on the home network as well? Coz the scope is smaller if we focus on the home gateway only, but on the = other hand including the "home network" will probably get too complex and a= rbitrary. So a home network can be as simple as a single 4 port wired/wireless router= OR can get as complex as an enterprise branch office. So what is our scope? Cheers, -Vittal From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Mark Townsley Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:43 AM To: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update On 8/27/10 10:27 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com wrote: > Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of routers in a= n > arbitrary topology. But arbitrarily complex networks cannot be scoped; w= e have to > stipulate a maximum level of complexity. Let's limit ourselves to cases = that cover > 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies. I think that for home networks its actually more important to be sure that = fairly arbitrary apologies work as the targeted user base is certainly boun= d to break any rules we might try and lay down. Such a topology is certainly no worse than what we define for mobile ad hoc= networks. - Mark > > Lee +1 on this. "tree" or "loop-free" topologies are also good names. It would mean a LAN I= GP is out of scope (but not a WAN IGP). JF _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate --_000_3E6CB99C2F38864E95D6AA1B707C0C70573B12EED7EMBX02HQjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have a more basic question.

Are we focusing on the home gateway to the external world OR= are we focusing on the home network as well?

Coz the scope is smaller  if we focus on the home gatew= ay only, but on the other hand including the “home network” will probabl= y get too complex and arbitrary.

So a home network can be as simple as a single 4 port wired/wireless router OR can get as complex as an enterprise branch office.=

So what is our scope?

 

 

Cheers,

-Vittal

 

From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Townsley
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:43 AM
To: homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update

 

On 8/27/10 10:27 PM, Jean-Francois.Tremb= layING@videotron.com wrote:




> Home networks can conceivably contain an arbitrary number of route= rs in an
> arbitrary topology.  But arbitrarily complex networks cannot = be scoped; we have to
> stipulate a maximum level of complexity.  Let's limit ourselv= es to cases that cover
> 99.9% of networks; i.e., linear or cascaded topologies.

I think that for home networks its actually more impor= tant to be sure that fairly arbitrary apologies work as the targeted user base i= s certainly bound to break any rules we might try and lay down.

Such a topology is certainly no worse than what we define for mobile ad hoc networks.

- Mark


> =
> Lee

+1 on this.
"tree" or "loop-free&qu= ot; topologies are also good names. It would mean a LAN IGP is out of scope (bu= t not a WAN IGP).

JF= 

 
 
______________=
_________________________________
homegate mailing lis=
t
homegate@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/homegate

 

--_000_3E6CB99C2F38864E95D6AA1B707C0C70573B12EED7EMBX02HQjnprn_-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 31 11:17:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817BD3A683A for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EP9Tj-z7YW0j for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12A53A6838 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.91414834; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:17:42 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%12]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:17:41 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Vittal Krishnamurthy , Ray Bellis Thread-Topic: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents Thread-Index: AQHLSS/M9EuMn2wKb0qBNkSXnDKHHpL73zmA Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:17:41 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <48E57987-2A1E-4702-AF01-C58EE0DD9A48@juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:17:15 -0000 I am also able to contribute, whether by editing, writing, or reviewing documents. (I think that was assumed but would love to see more people raise their hand!) Jason On 8/31/10 12:46 PM, "Vittal Krishnamurthy" wrote: >Pls count me in.=20 > >Rgds >-Vittal >----------------- >Quick terse message from my iPhone (with typos!) > >On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > >>=20 >> On 27 Aug 2010, at 23:55, David Harrington wrote: >>=20 >>> As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine whether >>> the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. >>=20 >> Echoing David's concerns - it would be a *great* help if those prepared >>to help could stand up and be counted ASAP. >>=20 >> Timing for establishing a working group for Beijing is rapidly running >>out. >>=20 >> Ray >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >_______________________________________________ >homegate mailing list >homegate@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From touch@isi.edu Tue Aug 31 11:21:07 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DFC3A69E9 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 048AKzJG1VQj for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E583A6A7E for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.176.245] (c3-vpn7.isi.edu [128.9.176.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7VIL1JX024847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D480D.4070309@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:21:01 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Townsley References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <4C7D418A.808@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: <4C7D418A.808@townsley.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:21:07 -0000 On 8/31/2010 10:53 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > On 8/29/10 10:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> 2. Service Discovery >>> - Standardised service discovery in the home. >> >> This doesn't seem as important to me because few gateways at the moment act as the service registry, nor prevent such discovery. > > As most discovery mechanisms operate either fully at L2 or use multicast > DNS, FWIW, many use multicast but not DNS. That doesn't change the rest of the paragraph below, but does suggest that DNS proxies or DNS forwarding won't resolve this issue. Joe gateways certainly do prevent such discovery when the home network > is divided into different multicast domains. This is of course something > that is actually quite common whenever you see more than one gateway, or > even more than one SSID (local + guest). > > Also - advertising reachability for RG configuration itself would be > very convenient to have as a service, rather than relying on a numeric > address or even well-known DNS name to be typed into a web browser. > > - Mark > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 31 11:25:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38AC3A68F1 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofeWt79oziNU for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10B73A68DF for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.91416210; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:25:26 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%12]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:25:26 -0400 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: Mark Townsley , "homegate@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homegate] Homegate charter Thread-Index: AQHLRpilJiT5lxCnc0O1nzWsPF8YwZL5Lx8AgAG66ICAAA2ngIABIgaA///M2wA= Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:25:24 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4eed946a-c464-436a-ba5f-381f4b6dae45> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:25:01 -0000 >>> >>>I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be >>>restricted to one or more border routers. >> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be >>addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service >>provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be >>configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home >>network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the >>gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably >>include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has >>not yet standardized any home networking protocol. >IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in >Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", including >not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the home >network itself. This would presumably include some kind of >zero-configuration routing protocol. That was my recollection as well -- that the effort is broader than the home gateway device and includes how the home network accesses/interfaces with the big "I" public Internet. >Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are >participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the home >gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + >whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient >without spinning up an entire WG. Agree. -- Jason From mbaugher@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 11:26:16 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DC73A6A73 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:26:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6llp5PFhxht for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609833A6A7A for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAI/mfEyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACgWXGkWJwOgweCMASEPYVU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="179502564" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 18:26:46 +0000 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VIQjS9008432; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:26:46 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <4C7D44B9.4060307@broadcom.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:26:45 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> <4C7D44B9.4060307@broadcom.com> To: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:26:16 -0000 The UPnP Forum decided to expect true routing inside the network. At = least it is arguable that un-bridgeable networks (and applications like = sensor networks) are on the horizon that might introduce the need for = routing. Mark On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote: > Do we really expect true routing inside the home? > Aren't we really talking about bridging and switching which is already = well covered > by existing specifications, e.g. IEEE 802.1 >=20 > On 8/31/2010 10:28 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >> On 8/31/10 2:10 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: >>> Ole, >>>=20 >>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >>>=20 >>>> I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be = restricted to one or more border routers. >>> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be = addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service = provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be = configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home = network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the = gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably = include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has = not yet standardized any home networking protocol. >> IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in >> Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", = including >> not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the = home >> network itself. This would presumably include some kind of >> zero-configuration routing protocol. >>=20 >> Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are >> participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the = home >> gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + >> whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient >> without spinning up an entire WG. >>=20 >> - Mark >>=20 >>> Mark >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: = palm@kiwin.com > Senior Technical Director T: = +1-949-926-PALM > Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: = +1-949-926-7256 > Irvine, California W: = http://www.kiwin.com > Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu = palm@broadcom.com > s.palm@ieee.org palm@itu.ch spalm@cs.cmu.edu = palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From mbaugher@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 11:42:01 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70D93A69E2 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:42:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bx9nSv7VGuFD for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D514D3A69E5 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABTqfEyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACgWXGkQ5wUhTcEhD2FVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="247818190" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 18:42:27 +0000 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VIgRjM024514; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:27 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:42:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <33EB70CD-D577-4D85-A010-B0942B65925F@cisco.com> References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> To: Mark Townsley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:02 -0000 In practical home networks in the US and other places, people will buy a = device that can function as a gateway or as an interior node on the home = network depending on how they configure the WAN port. So there is not = really an debate on gateway versus routing in the charter. I favor = focusing on a device that really exists today and that forms the = backbone of the home network instead of the disembodied concept of 'home = routing', which may never become of practical importance to the home = network. I'm not sure what we problems we are trying to solve or what we hope to = accomplish in this group. Mark On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >=20 > On 8/31/10 2:10 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: >> Ole, >>=20 >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >>=20 >>> I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be = restricted to one or more border routers. >> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be = addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service = provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be = configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home = network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the = gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably = include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has = not yet standardized any home networking protocol. > IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in > Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", including > not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the = home > network itself. This would presumably include some kind of > zero-configuration routing protocol. >=20 > Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are > participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the home > gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + > whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient > without spinning up an entire WG. >=20 > - Mark >=20 >> Mark >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From oran@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 11:47:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8143A69D1 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbRDER4yy4dY for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739093A69C5 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-Files: PGP.sig : 194 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAPrfExAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACgWXGkW5wRhTcEihE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280707200"; d="sig'?scan'208";a="153977803" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 18:48:14 +0000 Received: from dhcp-161-44-173-100.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-173-100.cisco.com [161.44.173.100]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VIm3Dw021857 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:48:13 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-161-44-173-100.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:48:14 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-161-44-173-100.cisco.com on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:48:14 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: David R Oran In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:47:58 -0400 Message-Id: References: To: "Livingood, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-PGP-Encoding-Format: MIME X-PGP-Encoding-Version: 2.0.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="PGP_Universal_BAA5BC54_2861A8BD_C1FDBBBD_013156C7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1" Cc: Ray Bellis , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:47:50 -0000 --PGP_Universal_BAA5BC54_2861A8BD_C1FDBBBD_013156C7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > I am also able to contribute, whether by editing, writing, or = reviewing > documents. (I think that was assumed but would love to see more people > raise their hand!) >=20 I can certainly raise my hand for that level of participation. I may have some difficulty attending IETF in person for the next year, = which is why I do not feel comfortable putting my hand up for a more = central role, such as WG secretary or WG co-chair. I am most interested in the parts of the problem related to operation = inside the home network and ensuring full access to internet services = from the hosts on that network to the rest of the internet. This = includes: - address delegation and routing on the home network - dealing with multi-interface and dual stack hosts - dealing with multi-homing - naming, particularly being able to name and access things inside the = home from anywhere on the internet. I am (personally) less interested in the issue affecting the link = between the home gateway and the ISP's edge router, such as access link = QoS, management of the connection, etc. although that's not to say I = think they are in any way less important. DaveO. >=20 > Jason >=20 > On 8/31/10 12:46 PM, "Vittal Krishnamurthy" = wrote: >=20 >> Pls count me in.=20 >>=20 >> Rgds >> -Vittal >> ----------------- >> Quick terse message from my iPhone (with typos!) >>=20 >> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Ray Bellis = wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 27 Aug 2010, at 23:55, David Harrington wrote: >>>=20 >>>> As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine = whether >>>> the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. >>>=20 >>> Echoing David's concerns - it would be a *great* help if those = prepared >>> to help could stand up and be counted ASAP. >>>=20 >>> Timing for establishing a working group for Beijing is rapidly = running >>> out. >>>=20 >>> Ray >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homegate mailing list >>> homegate@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate --PGP_Universal_BAA5BC54_2861A8BD_C1FDBBBD_013156C7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=PGP.sig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.2 (Build 13) iQA/AwUBTH1OaI1mhLZU3SrmEQLi2QCfVpWA77xthfqm5gnvqmPxb68ukZcAnRZg tB+u+1fZy6WnpMtBre3LGVuf =2yxB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PGP_Universal_BAA5BC54_2861A8BD_C1FDBBBD_013156C7-- From mbaugher@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 11:56:59 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881883A69D1 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.513, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsEVhz4xVVxK for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1A13A6A69 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAA7ufEyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACgWXGkbpwUhTcEhD2FVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,299,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="581389235" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 18:57:19 +0000 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VIvJ0m006085; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:57:19 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:57:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91597372-0BEF-4106-8765-4458BE6442E6@cisco.com> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:57:00 -0000 On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Is there a case for dual-homed (i.e. more than one gateway) being = included now, or should that maybe form a later phase of the work? I'd say that there is a case: We already see dual-homed configurations = today with cell phone APs. I expect that this will become more = important in the future as people get second and third ways to access = the internet from home and personal devices. Mark From bs7652@att.com Tue Aug 31 12:00:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940BD3A6A87 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jaYdSsdEUQH for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF583A6A8C for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1283281266!42139827!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 1533 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2010 19:01:07 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Aug 2010 19:01:07 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7VJ0aq9008076 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:00:36 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010622.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.83]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id o7VJ0WCY007978 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:00:32 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010650.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.120]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:01:02 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:01:01 -0400 Message-ID: <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F15DAA533@crexc50p> In-Reply-To: <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: daisy-chained vs. serial vs. parallel vs. cascaded thread-index: AQHLSSFossIEJoHo2E2rf7ewPkeiOZL7qRIAgAARNPSAACfh4A== References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu>, <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> From: "STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2010 19:01:02.0391 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB295470:01CB493E] Subject: [homegate] daisy-chained vs. serial vs. parallel vs. cascaded X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:00:47 -0000 > Daisy-chained may not be helpful either. Parallel and serial are > generally well understood, the "cascade" refers to several routers in > serial, e.g. one behind the other.=20 Every time I see "daisy-chained" being used because people don't like "cascaded", it makes me cringe. Serial is better. To be clear, the most common examples of daisy-chaining are found in home phone wiring and electric circuits. A long, pair of wires is run around a room or building, and it is tapped at various points so things can be connected to it. These things are in parallel. They are not in serial. If you add a device or remove a device, it does not interrupt the circuit or the connection to other devices. Cascaded gateways are not daisy-chained -- they are not in parallel. They are in series. If a cascaded router breaks or otherwise fails, connectivity is broken between its LAN and WAN. Cascading comes from waterfalls. A cascade is a waterfall. Water goes over one cascade, goes a little way, goes over another cascade, continues, another cascade, etc. If you put something in the way of the waterfall, you can affect and control the flow to everything downstream. It's also common for a big upstream river to have its water split up so that some water goes over one waterfall, and other water goes over other waterfalls. Waterfalls (cascades) are in series. Not parallel. The main difference between truly "serial" and "cascade" is that with the cascade you have the big mass of water at the top that can get distributed to various streams towards the bottom by routing portions of the water over different waterfalls. Serial is generally considered to just be a single sequence of things connected together.=20 Therefore, cascade is not equal to daisy-chain. Cascade can be serial. Barbara From touch@isi.edu Tue Aug 31 12:53:43 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48233A6A89 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8jwqPjpPfrt for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9D23A6A08 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.176.245] (c3-vpn7.isi.edu [128.9.176.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7VJrsgs015387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D5DD2.5070308@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:53:54 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)" References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu>, <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F15DAA533@crexc50p> In-Reply-To: <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F15DAA533@crexc50p> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] daisy-chained vs. serial vs. parallel vs. cascaded X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:53:43 -0000 Seems like some definitions are getting mixed here: On 8/31/2010 12:01 PM, STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS) wrote: >> Daisy-chained may not be helpful either. Parallel and serial are >> generally well understood, the "cascade" refers to several routers in >> serial, e.g. one behind the other. > > Every time I see "daisy-chained" being used because people don't like > "cascaded", it makes me cringe. Serial is better. > > To be clear, the most common examples of daisy-chaining are found in > home phone wiring and electric circuits. A long, pair of wires is run > around a room or building, and it is tapped at various points so things > can be connected to it. These things are in parallel. They are not in > serial. If you add a device or remove a device, it does not interrupt > the circuit or the connection to other devices. That is the definition of parallel connections, NOT daisy chaining. http://www.maxim-ic.com/glossary/definitions.mvp/term/daisy_chain/gpk/71 > Cascaded gateways are not daisy-chained -- they are not in parallel. > They are in series. If a cascaded router breaks or otherwise fails, > connectivity is broken between its LAN and WAN. > > Cascading comes from waterfalls. A cascade is a waterfall. Water goes > over one cascade, goes a little way, goes over another cascade, > continues, another cascade, etc. If you put something in the way of the > waterfall, you can affect and control the flow to everything downstream. > It's also common for a big upstream river to have its water split up so > that some water goes over one waterfall, and other water goes over other > waterfalls. Waterfalls (cascades) are in series. Not parallel. The main > difference between truly "serial" and "cascade" is that with the cascade > you have the big mass of water at the top that can get distributed to > various streams towards the bottom by routing portions of the water over > different waterfalls. Serial is generally considered to just be a single > sequence of things connected together. You have just given a great reason why cascade is actually daisy chaining. Joe From ajs@shinkuro.com Tue Aug 31 13:01:08 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391F23A6AB2 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.848, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8NZ3NqmibYA for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726863A6A96 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D4FD1ECB408 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:01:36 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homegate@ietf.org Message-ID: <20100831200135.GT24538@shinkuro.com> References: <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F15DAA533@crexc50p> <4C7D5DD2.5070308@isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C7D5DD2.5070308@isi.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [homegate] daisy-chained vs. serial vs. parallel vs. cascaded X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:01:08 -0000 On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:53:54PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: >> waterfalls. Waterfalls (cascades) are in series. Not parallel. The main >> difference between truly "serial" and "cascade" is that with the cascade >> you have the big mass of water at the top that can get distributed to >> various streams towards the bottom by routing portions of the water over >> different waterfalls. Serial is generally considered to just be a single >> sequence of things connected together. > > You have just given a great reason why cascade is actually daisy chaining. Surely, since this is all analogies with things in the world anyway and people are disagreeing with the meanings, we ought to pick the least fraught terms? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From touch@isi.edu Tue Aug 31 13:11:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3533A6AE9 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iAua2Bes-esY for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C973A6ADE for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.9.176.245] (c3-vpn7.isi.edu [128.9.176.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7VK9b7b018755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D6180.2050304@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:09:36 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan References: <9C184012-7F5C-42E1-B9B8-7BA36F389EAF@nominet.org.uk> <8F9F107F1A51524597A5D2E0F43EE9632A7A5813C2@PRVPEXVS09.corp.twcable.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F15DAA533@crexc50p> <4C7D5DD2.5070308@isi.edu> <20100831200135.GT24538@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: <20100831200135.GT24538@shinkuro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] daisy-chained vs. serial vs. parallel vs. cascaded X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:11:06 -0000 On 8/31/2010 1:01 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:53:54PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > >>> waterfalls. Waterfalls (cascades) are in series. Not parallel. The main >>> difference between truly "serial" and "cascade" is that with the cascade >>> you have the big mass of water at the top that can get distributed to >>> various streams towards the bottom by routing portions of the water over >>> different waterfalls. Serial is generally considered to just be a single >>> sequence of things connected together. >> >> You have just given a great reason why cascade is actually daisy chaining. > > Surely, since this is all analogies with things in the world anyway > and people are disagreeing with the meanings, we ought to pick the > least fraught terms? "relay" or "relay sequence" is the most clear, IMO. Joe From ajs@shinkuro.com Tue Aug 31 14:56:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC3B3A686C for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:56:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.761 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.838, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TKXKoRrGdgfV for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A960F3A682B for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73A7E1ECB408 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:57:20 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: homegate@ietf.org Message-ID: <20100831215720.GV24538@shinkuro.com> References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:56:53 -0000 On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:20:15PM +0000, Ray Bellis wrote: > FWIW, I think that solving dual-homed networking issues is _much_ harder than getting the single gateway (or serial gateways) stuff right. > > Is there a case for dual-homed (i.e. more than one gateway) being included now, or should that maybe form a later phase of the work? > There's nothing that says you have to have a particular work item for every single thing that would naturally be in scope. That is, the charter could say, "The WG will take on the topic if there is interest," without actually committing to doing that work. That way, if someone _wants_ to do it they have a home, but if nobody does the work before everything else is done, there's no requirement that the WG deliver something before winding down. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From mark@townsley.net Tue Aug 31 15:06:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAFA3A6855 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8phJDYdmnL7S for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3583A684D for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so4414112eyd.31 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.13.2 with SMTP id z2mr10386004ebz.96.1283292433749; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm14819800eei.12.2010.08.31.15.07.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D7D0D.1000509@townsley.net> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:07:09 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> <33EB70CD-D577-4D85-A010-B0942B65925F@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <33EB70CD-D577-4D85-A010-B0942B65925F@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:06:45 -0000 On 8/31/10 8:42 PM, Mark Baugher wrote: > In practical home networks in the US and other places, people will > buy a device that can function as a gateway or as an interior node on > the home network depending on how they configure the WAN port. So > there is not really an debate on gateway versus routing in the > charter. Does that port really have to be "configured", and if so by whom and in what way? Perhaps the WG stops short of this, that it is up to the vendor to make it intuitive, and that the IETF makes no recommendation how to deduce what is a WAN and what is a LAN port. Personally, I'd rather this be more automatic and not leave it up to physical port labeling, explicit configuration, or vendors writing code that tries to figure this out alone. > I favor focusing on a device that really exists today and > that forms the backbone of the home network instead of the > disembodied concept of 'home routing', which may never become of > practical importance to the home network. I'm confused. On one hand you cite UPnP expecting home routing to exist, along with a use-case or two backing it up. On the other you say "home routing" may never become of practical importance. Surely I'm missing something. > > I'm not sure what we problems we are trying to solve or what we hope > to accomplish in this group. IMHO, Ole made a decent list. - Mark > > Mark > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >> >> On 8/31/10 2:10 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: >>> Ole, >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >>> >>>> I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not >>>> be restricted to one or more border routers. >>> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to >>> be addressed was in the interface between the home network and >>> the service provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway >>> products can be configured to run as border routers or interior >>> routers on the home network. So I don't see what's missing by >>> restricting the focus to the gateway. The term "home network" is >>> pretty amorphous and can arguably include too much for a single >>> WG, particularly given that the IETF has not yet standardized any >>> home networking protocol. >> IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in >> Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", >> including not just the device at the edge of the home network and >> SP, but the home network itself. This would presumably include some >> kind of zero-configuration routing protocol. >> >> Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are >> participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the >> home gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the >> v6ops WG + whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is >> sufficient without spinning up an entire WG. >> >> - Mark >> >>> Mark >>> >>> _______________________________________________ homegate mailing >>> list homegate@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> >> _______________________________________________ homegate mailing >> list homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > > _______________________________________________ homegate mailing > list homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From townsley@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 15:11:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEDC3A6858 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.304 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lXnhPqgkVsZd for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81493A684D for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiQGAMIbfUyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACTPI0ccaM2nBeFNwSKEQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,300,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="581476500" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 22:12:26 +0000 Received: from iwan-view2.cisco.com (iwan-view2.cisco.com [171.70.65.8]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VMCQqn012485 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:12:26 GMT Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com [10.55.233.235]) by iwan-view2.cisco.com (8.11.2/CISCO.WS.1.2) with ESMTP id o7VMCPH21071 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7D7E46.1060001@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:12:22 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homegate] volunteering to work on homegate WG documents X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:11:57 -0000 On 8/31/10 8:47 PM, David R Oran wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > >> I am also able to contribute, whether by editing, writing, or reviewing >> documents. (I think that was assumed but would love to see more people >> raise their hand!) >> > I can certainly raise my hand for that level of participation. > I may have some difficulty attending IETF in person for the next year, which is why I do not feel comfortable putting my hand up for a more central role, such as WG secretary or WG co-chair. > > I am most interested in the parts of the problem related to operation inside the home network and ensuring full access to internet services from the hosts on that network to the rest of the internet. This includes: > - address delegation and routing on the home network > - dealing with multi-interface and dual stack hosts > - dealing with multi-homing > - naming, particularly being able to name and access things inside the home from anywhere on the internet. I think your list captures the essence of the opportunities that the IETF can most uniquely deliver upon, if it chose to do so. > > I am (personally) less interested in the issue affecting the link between the home gateway and the ISP's edge router, such as access link QoS, management of the connection, etc. although that's not to say I think they are in any way less important. This is important, but its also where you start getting into very SP-specific territory, including deeper overlap with BBF, Cablelabs, etc. - Mark > > DaveO. > >> >> Jason >> >> On 8/31/10 12:46 PM, "Vittal Krishnamurthy" wrote: >> >>> Pls count me in. >>> >>> Rgds >>> -Vittal >>> ----------------- >>> Quick terse message from my iPhone (with typos!) >>> >>> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 27 Aug 2010, at 23:55, David Harrington wrote: >>>> >>>>> As an IESG member, I could use that information to determine whether >>>>> the charter scope and the committed resources are aligned well. >>>> >>>> Echoing David's concerns - it would be a *great* help if those prepared >>>> to help could stand up and be counted ASAP. >>>> >>>> Timing for establishing a working group for Beijing is rapidly running >>>> out. >>>> >>>> Ray >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> homegate mailing list >>>> homegate@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homegate mailing list >>> homegate@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > > > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From mbaugher@cisco.com Tue Aug 31 16:38:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B40A3A67EF for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7uxdAQL-qqs for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338013A6814 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAK4vfUyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACgWXGjQpwZhTcEhD2FVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,301,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="581517665" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 23:38:35 +0000 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com (sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com [10.19.93.34]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VNcY95003486; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:38:34 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <4C7D7D0D.1000509@townsley.net> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:34 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> <33EB70CD-D577-4D85-A010-B0942B65925F@cisco.com> <4C7D7D0D.1000509@townsley.net> To: Mark Townsley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:38:06 -0000 On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >=20 > I'm confused. On one hand you cite UPnP expecting home routing to = exist, > along with a use-case or two backing it up. On the other you say "home > routing" may never become of practical importance. >=20 > Surely I'm missing something. No, not necessarily. Home networks are mostly bridged not routed today. = So why are we worried about routing? I think you and I can agree that = the present situation might change in the future. Or it might not. The = only real evidence I have that we may need routed home networks is that = one new LAN type, 802.15.4, cannot be bridged; some networks like sensor = networks probably should not be bridged. And we also expect the number = of home network devices to increase exponentially in the future. Will = these factors change the status quo of having only one bridged LAN in = the home? I think it's possible but not necessarily likely. I don't = see the 'killer app' for home routing. Multi-homing and other gateway = services seem to be of more practical importance to me. But I have no = crystal ball. >=20 >>=20 >> I'm not sure what we problems we are trying to solve or what we hope >> to accomplish in this group. >=20 > IMHO, Ole made a decent list. >=20 I think it's a decent place to start if we are going to rethink the = charter again.=20 Mark From hkirksey@motive.com Tue Aug 31 16:46:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CE93A67EF for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5yGkZzzTQQI for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE633A681F for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o7VNgN2Q016474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o7VNgNBv015140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:23 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSB2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.138]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:23 -0500 From: "Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" To: "Livingood, Jason" , Mark Townsley , "homegate@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:42:23 -0500 Thread-Topic: [homegate] Homegate charter Thread-Index: AQHLRpilJiT5lxCnc0O1nzWsPF8YwZL5Lx8AgAG66ICAAA2ngIABIgaA///M2wCAADatNA== Message-ID: References: <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:46:57 -0000 Mark, I also think that it could be a good idea to have the charter reference hom= e networks rather than simply the home border routers, depending on what ex= actly you end up specifying in this area (note that I haven't responded to = Ole's mail yet but will shortly although I think it does provide a good sta= rting point). I think this is an area where the IETF could add some real v= alue, especially in the area of IPv6 deployment in the home, and it reduces= the possbility of overlap with other organizations.=20 Regarding scope size: on the one hand, yes, this could potentially widen th= e scope because it's opening the door to talk about more than one device, b= ut on the other I think it actually could better focus the work. Thanks, Heather ________________________________________ From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Li= vingood, Jason [Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:25 PM To: Mark Townsley; homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter >>> >>>I would have liked the charter to state "home networks" and not be >>>restricted to one or more border routers. >> That seems like charter creep to me since the original problem to be >>addressed was in the interface between the home network and the service >>provider network, i.e. the gateway. Retail gateway products can be >>configured to run as border routers or interior routers on the home >>network. So I don't see what's missing by restricting the focus to the >>gateway. The term "home network" is pretty amorphous and can arguably >>include too much for a single WG, particularly given that the IETF has >>not yet standardized any home networking protocol. >IIRC, there was significant interest, at least at the meeting in >Maastricht, to expand the scope of the WG to "home routing", including >not just the device at the edge of the home network and SP, but the home >network itself. This would presumably include some kind of >zero-configuration routing protocol. That was my recollection as well -- that the effort is broader than the home gateway device and includes how the home network accesses/interfaces with the big "I" public Internet. >Single WGs can take on rather large scope, as long as there are >participants to do the work. If the IETF scope remains "just" the home >gateway here, I personally believe the current work in the v6ops WG + >whatever targeted work items in DNSEXT and elsewhere is sufficient >without spinning up an entire WG. Agree. -- Jason _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate= From hkirksey@motive.com Tue Aug 31 17:38:30 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0635B3A686C for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:38:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XHPyKQ+-wvP for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79423A6859 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o810cvA4007549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:38:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o810ctNm009396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:38:56 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSB2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.138]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:38:55 -0500 From: "Kirksey, Heather R (Heather)" To: Ole Troan , "homegate@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:38:55 -0500 Thread-Topic: [homegate] Homegate charter Thread-Index: ActGmKSTiDFWv0bVQF2cHtnmmlsTgACx+fFR Message-ID: References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> In-Reply-To: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:38:30 -0000 Ole, I think the below contains some quite interesting possible work items. I a= lso agree that this list initially looks like a more compelling baseline th= an the current charter's contents. I do have a couple questions/comments: 1. I'm a little unclear by what you exactly mean by service discovery in th= e home. =20 2. What do you think needs to be specified around the transition mechanisms= outside of the RFCs that define them? Don't get me wrong -- I think that = it's an important topic, but I'm just wondering what you think the addition= al work is. 3. Regarding in-home QoS, a numer of other organizations have done work in = this area, including UPnP Forum, HGI, and DLNA. What are you thinking here= exactly? Also, although I think much of the below list is interesting, it might be a= little much to tackle all of them in a first version of a document. I thi= nk they do span a number of different topics as well (not that the other pr= oposed charter doesn't); there is somewhat of a risk of ending up with a ch= arter that somewhat feels as though it could be summarized as "Miscellaneou= s." I'd either work to prioritize and include the top, say, 3 things in th= e first document, or try to group them together from a topic perspective an= d choose one topic to tackle first (e.g., all topics relating to IPv6/dual = stack deployment in the home network).=20 Heather ________________________________________ From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org [homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ol= e Troan [otroan@employees.org] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:05 AM To: homegate@ietf.org Subject: [homegate] Homegate charter the current charter proposes to work on the following problems: * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding logic= . These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly under loa= d conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for instance, P2P o= r IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on interactive traffic= . * Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects DNS = traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these designs th= ey often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for instance when employi= ng TCP transport or EDNS0. The problem is that while these complex cases ar= e uncommon today, they are becoming more common for various reasons. * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree. More importantly, there is= no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home = gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling = functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? * While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically works we= ll in the gateways, they do not always support the current timeout recommen= dations or additional transport protocols. I would claim that the IPv6 bullet is solved through the v6ops work. that t= he DNS bullet is covered largely by 5625. are we left with making a recomme= ndation on NATs and choice of queuing algorithm? that's not something I thi= nk justifies a working group. in contrast here is the list of problems I'd like to work on: (this is largely the punt list from the Basic IPv6 CE router work). 1. Brave New World - every host is suddenly multi-homed (IPv4 and IPv6) - or an IPv6 only host is behind a NAT64 - or an IPv4 host is behind NAT444 - Happy Eyeballs 2. Service Discovery - Standardised service discovery in the home. 3. DNS - Reverse zone for delegated prefix? - Mechanism to delegate authority? 4. Multicast - Multicast routing in the home in case of a routed home or just MLD proxy 5. Routed home - Zero configuration routers / plug and play - Arbitrary complex topology - Prefix assignment - Distribution of other configuration information / policy - Unicast routing 6. IPv6 transition mechanisms - 6rd, DS-lite, NAT64 7. Firewall pinholing / PCP 8. Security - Firewall pinholing - End2end compliant security? (What's the point of IPv6 if we still break end2end with NAT44 equival= ent security?) 9. QoS - Require QoS into the home, rather than just better queueing on the CPE= ? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homegate mailing list homegate@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate= From mark@townsley.net Tue Aug 31 17:58:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25723A6866 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:58:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-h3Rh55J8eQ for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1F03A6859 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so4456320eyd.31 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.10.70 with SMTP id o6mr10879874ebo.31.1283302757055; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-87110.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm15057496eeh.3.2010.08.31.17.59.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C7DA561.6050102@townsley.net> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:59:13 +0200 From: Mark Townsley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homegate@ietf.org References: <9AA45D3D-6E0C-4B5B-B11C-082A089CA153@employees.org> <6CB8A4FE-76C4-4784-A6E6-7760BA35843E@employees.org> <4C7D3BBB.701@townsley.net> <33EB70CD-D577-4D85-A010-B0942B65925F@cisco.com> <4C7D7D0D.1000509@townsley.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate charter X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:58:48 -0000 On 9/1/10 1:38 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >> >> I'm confused. On one hand you cite UPnP expecting home routing to >> exist, along with a use-case or two backing it up. On the other you >> say "home routing" may never become of practical importance. >> >> Surely I'm missing something. > > No, not necessarily. Home networks are mostly bridged not routed > today. And it used to be that most home connectivity was a single PC connected to a serial cable and modem. I certainly don't have any hard data here, but I do remember a presentation from Dave Thaler suggesting that the number of Teredo connections originating from behind two levels of NAT was in the double-digit percentages. As service provider NATs are not widely deployed yet, the supposition is that all of these were NATs plugged into NATs. That's not a bridged home network. And, of course, in IPv6 we don't have the NAT to fall back on (yet, and I would rather like to avoid it for cases where it isn't really necessary). There is a clear trend in the US and EU of the SP providing an RG with residential service. At the same time, various retail providers sell hot-spots, time-machines, whatever, that act as a "networking device" of sorts. These all end up being plugged into one another, perhaps in a hap-hazardous fashion (but, again, perhaps less-so than a mobile ad-hoc network which is the full-tilt extreme here). > So why are we worried about routing? I think you and I can > agree that the present situation might change in the future. Or it > might not. The only real evidence I have that we may need routed > home networks is that one new LAN type, 802.15.4, cannot be bridged; > some networks like sensor networks probably should not be bridged. Or, at the other end of the spectrum from a sensor network, a very high speed media for video (or 3D video, or whatever). Or, a separate LAN for your smartgrid. But its not just media types, a home + guest SSID (common in a number of RGs now) approaches the same issues of what is and is not a subnet, and how to route, bridge or NAT between. Or, as is the case in my home and all 4.5 million Free users, a separate IPv6 subnet for the Free RG and video STB vs. the subnet that the home PCs attach to (if/when the user enables IPv6 on the local LAN). > And we also expect the number of home network devices to increase > exponentially in the future. Will these factors change the status > quo of having only one bridged LAN in the home? I think it's > possible but not necessarily likely. I don't see the 'killer app' > for home routing. Multi-homing and other gateway services seem to be > of more practical importance to me. But I have no crystal ball. No crystal ball here either. But, I know where the IETF's best play is, and it's in IP. If bridging saves the the world and all homes can be flat now and forever more, so be it. But in case that doesn't happen, IP should work - and at least for IPv6, I'd rather design it than leaving it up to chance (we left it to chance with IPv4 and the result is all too clear). > >> >>> >>> I'm not sure what we problems we are trying to solve or what we >>> hope to accomplish in this group. >> >> IMHO, Ole made a decent list. >> > > I think it's a decent place to start if we are going to rethink the > charter again. Me too. - Mark > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ homegate mailing > list homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From ietfdbh@comcast.net Tue Aug 31 18:04:20 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B55E3A6887 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.179 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MI+PhbaMdU7F for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4278F3A686C for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0zoq1f0021ei1Bg53D4qNl; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:04:50 +0000 Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1D4q1f0062JQnJT3kD4qvt; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:04:50 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Andrew Sullivan'" , References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk><4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu><80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> <20100831215720.GV24538@shinkuro.com> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:03:56 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20100831215720.GV24538@shinkuro.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-Index: ActJV4CtCmRhhK0DTDeL8ssVe80PEgAGerQQ Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:04:20 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:57 PM > To: homegate@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:20:15PM +0000, Ray Bellis wrote: > > FWIW, I think that solving dual-homed networking issues is > _much_ harder than getting the single gateway (or serial > gateways) stuff right. > > > > Is there a case for dual-homed (i.e. more than one gateway) > being included now, or should that maybe form a later phase > of the work? > > > > There's nothing that says you have to have a particular work > item for every single thing that would naturally be in scope. > That is, the charter could say, "The WG will take on the > topic if there is interest," without actually committing to > doing that work. I'm not convinced you'll get iesg to sign off on a charter like that ;-) > That way, if someone _wants_ to do it they > have a home, but if nobody does the work before everything > else is done, there's no requirement that the WG deliver > something before winding down. > > A > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@shinkuro.com > Shinkuro, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From ajs@shinkuro.com Tue Aug 31 19:00:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E2E3A69FA for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.77 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.829, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LwUHmTlckIel for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E933A69FF for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.33.100] (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 813CF1ECB408; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:01:09 +0000 (UTC) References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> <20100831215720.GV24538@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A400) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <50CBD78B-80F5-44A2-A425-FF219CC0B3A9@shinkuro.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A400) From: Andrew Sullivan Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:01:29 -0400 To: David Harrington Cc: "" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:00:40 -0000 -- Andrew Sullivan On 2010-08-31, at 21:03, "David Harrington" wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: homegate-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:homegate-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:57 PM >> To: homegate@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:20:15PM +0000, Ray Bellis wrote: >>> FWIW, I think that solving dual-homed networking issues is >> _much_ harder than getting the single gateway (or serial >> gateways) stuff right. >>> >>> Is there a case for dual-homed (i.e. more than one gateway) >> being included now, or should that maybe form a later phase >> of the work? >>> >> >> There's nothing that says you have to have a particular work >> item for every single thing that would naturally be in scope. >> That is, the charter could say, "The WG will take on the >> topic if there is interest," without actually committing to >> doing that work. > > I'm not convinced you'll get iesg to sign off on a charter like that > ;-) > >> That way, if someone _wants_ to do it they >> have a home, but if nobody does the work before everything >> else is done, there's no requirement that the WG deliver >> something before winding down. >> >> A >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@shinkuro.com >> Shinkuro, Inc. >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homegate@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> > From ajs@shinkuro.com Tue Aug 31 19:08:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12233A6A01 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.082 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L5T6MIOufZBl for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF103A69FF for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.33.100] (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE5901ECB408; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:08:51 +0000 (UTC) References: <214531E0-F5DE-48D6-8598-511311ABCEE3@nominet.org.uk> <4C7D1F5C.1000206@telecom-bretagne.eu> <80739A5E-1E44-40CC-85D6-A90BF80B5844@apple.com> <20100831215720.GV24538@shinkuro.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A400) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A400) From: Andrew Sullivan Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:09:11 -0400 To: David Harrington Cc: "" Subject: Re: [homegate] Minor proposed charter text update X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:08:23 -0000 On 2010-08-31, at 21:03, "David Harrington" wrote: =20 >> That is, the charter could say, "The WG will take on the=20 >> topic if there is interest," without actually committing to=20 >> doing that work. =20 >=20 > I'm not convinced you'll get iesg to sign off on a charter like that Well, I guess I wrote a little sloppily, but the idea is to differentiate be= tween the _topics_ a working group is willing to take on, and the specific w= ork items a WG commits to delivering (i.e. with milestones). I can think of p= lenty of charters that seem to make this distinction, and there's a reason W= Gs occasionally have disputes about whether a draft is on-charter: if you ha= d to have milestones for everything you could possibly do, then no such disp= ute would be possible.=20 I will note in my own experience that DNSEXT (to my consternation) has been w= orking on this model for years.=20 A >=20 --=20 Andrew Sullivan =