Changes between Version 12 and Version 13 of IETF89

14/03/14 15:39:09 (7 years ago)



  • IETF89

    v12 v13  
    222222Finally, the status of the Directory Assisted Edge drafts was presented verbally but there was insufficient time to go into or discuss them.
     224== HOMENET ==
     226At IETF 89 in London, the Homenet WG met on Tuesday morning from 0900 until 1130. Attendance was good, with lively and largely constructive discussion. The main items discussed were status of the Homenet Architecture review by the IESG, followed by the introduction of the Homenet Control Protocol (HNCP), Naming, and Incremental operation with non-homenet routers (output of the incremental design team, and presentation of the DHCP CER ID as a possible aid for this).
     228For the Homenet Architecture update, specific text changes based on IESG review were presented and in most cases accepted. There was a call for editors to help create an OAM document for Homenet. One discuss remains, from our Routing AD, which we are continuing to converge upon. Our AD (Ted) indicated to the chairs, which we communicated to the group, that while we would continue to work on the details in the Homenet Architecture document based on these final review stages, the WG should not use this as a reason not to move forward with adopting solutions at this stage.
     230HNCP was up next, presented by the authors of 3 documents that cover HNCP itself, a general method for automatic prefix assignment which can be used by HNCP or other routing protocols (and is advancing in the OSPF WG, independently of Homenet), and DNS-SD/mDNS "hybrid proxy" for multilink service discovery in the home.
     232HNCP is an alternative to OSPF for home router configuration that was presented in the past. HNCP received positive support by the working group in general, and at the end of the meeting an open mic was held which drew a number of good suggestions. The WG chairs presented 3 options for the WG, (1) OSPF for configuration, (2) HNCP for configuration, (3) propose something else, or (4) "Don't know yet". There was very strong support for #2, HNCP, including adopting the HNCP draft as a WG document. We attempted to propose the same kinds of questions for questions regarding choice of routing protocol (or protocols) but were not able to fully formulate the question in time before meeting end.
     234Before the open-mic, there was another lively discussion on naming, oscillating between a model clearly preferred by an ISP vs. those who do not want to see ISPs directly involved in providing a naming service for devices in the home itself. This area needs more focus by the WG, and it is the chairs' hope that if the progress made on basic configuration and routing can stick, we will have more cycles to raise this discussion up to a point where we find a solution which achieves rough consensus from both sides. All in all, this was a very constructive meeting for Homenet.