From lars.eggert@nokia.com Mon Oct 12 19:50:05 2009 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 CF9A63A6782 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:50:05 -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 57-r0Jep2FgF for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6EF3A694E for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.31] (p2139-ipbf29marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp [219.162.45.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9D2nDu4069673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:49:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com) From: Lars Eggert Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-34-69605350; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:49:55 +0900 Message-Id: To: homegate@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [212.213.221.39]); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:49:57 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [homegate] chairs for HOMEGATE 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, 13 Oct 2009 02:50:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail-34-69605350 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Hi, FYI, the chairs for the HOMEGATE BOF will be: Jason Livingood David Oran Lars --Apple-Mail-34-69605350 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGbDCCAyUw ggKOoAMCAQICEAdjk36sXKbnVn15S0/qUp0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA5MDYxNTExMjYxNFoXDTEwMDYxNTExMjYx NFowXDEPMA0GA1UEBBMGRWdnZXJ0MQ0wCwYDVQQqEwRMYXJzMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtMYXJzIEVnZ2Vy dDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9raWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7mR8A+Pn0/FsUkMX6Pyjw+FL3IFcJk8GaKV5VJ40TMI0Wh8oq20cqA9X uqnVDW9WztKwH+o+msJenLwWpprbpJm4TImYGbnUJxYyN8gb81aiX1Bw2xCpJ5z3H2+8DsReJLuY Rdl4bVvaIxLIL4odmfsRwzPyNkOK8LRtfl6OPcaDOlFWzbikULfIVGGu7BqK4lxQSpYwwpZkOMOB 6nnBSfUOtBEmqO+qZG/nL/JxWFV5vxQgg4XHbsMMTxFf6+ji18BD09BUIfDLTuJoCzFmQhrM9vLT VuRhHWSL20LoafGjXv6mPt3i9IGJHpVb2dMQUgOgRyWHTKiUJVU/rUTdWwIDAQABo14wXDAqBgUr ZQEEAQQhMB8CAQAwGjAYAgEEBBNMMnVNeWZmQk5VYk5KSmNkWjJzMCAGA1UdEQQZMBeBFWxhcnMu ZWdnZXJ0QG5va2lhLmNvbTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBADUx+67n98wt I1vydB90HeSZP4Y64VCxxb0NxGGFvfc2+JdVKeHJ/xT+l+ygYKsWNwJJprkPi4WZ5G0crkq4VK1H 5drEJIztpSPVfWI05vPidaaGuuuCR+6MvJMtOTEYEvc/6eovBnkrzRf9x5x5EyuJXAWTeuBADg80 QI3vQ1tZMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTAT BgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUg Q29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIG A1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25h bC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNV BAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnKmVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAK MNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7 n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAw QwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJl ZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRl TGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9M Ibj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAxAwggMMAgEBMHYw YjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAq BgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAHY5N+rFym51Z9eUtP 6lKdMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFvMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkF MQ8XDTA5MTAxMzAyNDk1NlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFIhFpfwsMePRlpVz8MSNvwViuPagMIGF BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGlu ZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBD QQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVy c29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AASCAQBHDSngU/XDtAylKH2E2We2rn0Z0ooXkZa3N+AFHaQcS47J0vQgioZ83tiy9EsVFQ9JVMHu qnQfZQ32uipoYfFvY3zVex9ewLrHRoD/6YKdzLInxc3uLvoSOVr3XLkmn9TXc99ABbaAmlxtNFqE QCPGoXZF9xyzFq7oOfVm3T6l0eonjbQnr8o/JnxNOAPDLY5PmNigbYDkxDOWTRxPIDcRI8Wf3DbO lbGmEVgwFx2fZsG/JTyBhPzgOmoRtvWm9awt1NcYxr3BthcPhJid6cMAlaQ641IeTEwbHH5hTyfI R35dZH2FAlkHGjvXhJj6wRU9YBzqSbioGfagOYKTWPfkAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-34-69605350-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 21 13:23:49 2009 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 F2A9228C14B for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.316 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] 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 nrVvXTgJ2fkW for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F563A67EC for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-NTF18.81049174; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:23:32 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:23:32 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:23:32 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:23:30 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: BoF Logistics & Background Thread-Index: AcpSjFp15U0hHLqCMEO+Chy4tHO/Sw== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3338987011_1586362" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2009 20:23:32.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C1A3180:01CA528C] Subject: [homegate] BoF Logistics & Background 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, 21 Oct 2009 20:23:49 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3338987011_1586362 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Good news is that we have a BoF in store for IETF 76. Bad news is we need your help on tailoring the content appropriately. ;-) So, here is the logistical info from https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/76/agenda.html Room Location: Acacia West Date / Time: Monday, 9 November 2009, from 1520 to 1720 local time This is just after the afternoon break, so please arrive on time, with your pockets filled with cookies or soba noodles or whatever snacks they have. :-) This is a draft charter that ended up in approval of this BoF: Proposed Charter: Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one form or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local network and the Internet. These technologies almost always involve a single entity - which is not purely a router - called a "home gateway". This entity connects a local user or users to various LAN services, providing some basic level of security. The majority of Internet users employ home gateways for this purpose. =20 However, many serious, long-term problems face users of home gateways today= . At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device manufacturers= , and/or the organizations that specify requirements for such devices, are no= t certain which IETF standards and best current practices should be supported= , and when/why that support is needed. As a result of this, millions of devices are being deployed every year, which do not work with important IET= F protocols, standards, and best practices that are central to the future of the Internet.=20 =20 One of the problems in this area appears to be that home gateway vendors ar= e unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are important an= d in what context they matter. Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of =B3core=B2 RFCs/BCPs which must be supported, followed b= y some =B3advanced=B2 RFCs/BCPs which are to be considered optional. The context and reasoning behind each document which is included should be summarized a= s well, in order to improve comprehension of why a given document has been included. These things will help improve compatibilities with and capabilities for use of the Internet of today. This will include a focus i= n areas such as DNS proxy behavior, congestion mechanisms support, and security.=20 =20 A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use of the Internet of tomorrow. New security needs related to DNS are motivating a move to DNSSEC. However, many if not most home gateways cannot handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that could significantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support for IPv6 is also lacking to a great degree and there is no clear understanding of how such devices should support IPv6. =20 This working group will not develop new or extend existing Internet protocols. Should any such need develop, the chairs will refer the work to another working group that is chartered to focus on the relevant problem. =20 Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: The BoF/WG would work to improve the network experience that a SOHO / residential home user gets when using the Internet. This includes providin= g a tiered specification for what RFCs and BCPs should be supported, in what order/priority, and in what manner. This will touch on standards such as: o IPv6 o DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs o ECN o RED (or other queue management) o DNS Proxy BCPs o Security-Related BCPs o Other TBD =20 The group shall prioritize work as follows: 1. IPv4-related topics 2. IPv6-related topics 3. DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.) 4. ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management) 5. Security-related topics --> My next message will focus on the agenda for the session <-- //end// --B_3338987011_1586362 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable BoF Logistics & Background Good news is that we have a BoF in store for IETF 76.  Bad news is we= need your help on tailoring the content appropriately. ;-)

So, here is the logistical info from https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/76/agenda.ht= ml
Room Location: Acacia West
Date / Time: Monday, 9 November 2009, from 1520 to 1720 local time This is just after the afternoon break, so please arrive on time, with y= our pockets filled with cookies or soba noodles or whatever snacks they have= .  :-)

This is a draft charter that ended up in approval of this BoF:

Proposed Charter:
Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one form= or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or small to med= ium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local network and the Inte= rnet. These technologies almost always involve a single entity - which is no= t purely a router - called a "home gateway".  This entity con= nects a local user or users to various LAN services, providing some basic le= vel of security.  The majority of Internet users employ home gateways f= or this purpose.
 
However, many serious, long-term problems face users of home gateways today= .  At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device manufa= cturers, and/or the organizations that specify requirements for such devices= , are not certain which IETF standards and best current practices should be = supported, and when/why that support is needed.  As a result of this, m= illions of devices are being deployed every year, which do not work with imp= ortant IETF protocols, standards, and best practices that are central to the= future of the Internet.

One of the problems in this area appears to be that home gateway vendor= s are unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are importa= nt and in what context they matter. Thus, the primary objective of the group= is document a baseline of “core” RFCs/BCPs which must be suppor= ted, followed by some “advanced” RFCs/BCPs which are to be consi= dered optional.  The context and reasoning behind each document which i= s included should be summarized as well, in order to improve comprehension o= f why a given document has been included.  These things will help impro= ve compatibilities with and capabilities for use of the Internet of today= .  This will include a focus in areas such as DNS proxy behavior, c= ongestion mechanisms support, and security.
 
A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use of the= Internet of tomorrow.  New security needs related to DNS are mo= tivating a move to DNSSEC.  However, many if not most home gateways can= not handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that could signif= icantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support for IPv6 is also l= acking to a great degree and there is no clear understanding of how such dev= ices should support IPv6.
 
This working group will not develop new or extend existing Internet protoco= ls.  Should any such need develop, the chairs will refer the work to an= other working group that is chartered to focus on the relevant problem.
 
Proposed Deliverables and Priorities:
The BoF/WG would work to improve the network experience that a SOHO / resid= ential home user gets when using the Internet.  This includes providing= a tiered specification for what RFCs and BCPs should be supported, in what = order/priority, and in what manner. This will touch on standards such as: o   IPv6
o   DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs
o   ECN
o   RED (or other queue management)
o   DNS Proxy BCPs
o   Security-Related BCPs
o   Other TBD
 
The group shall prioritize work as follows:
1.    IPv4-related topics
2.    IPv6-related topics
3.    DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.)
4.    ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management) 5.    Security-related topics


--> My next message will focus on the agenda for the session <--

//end//


 --B_3338987011_1586362-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 21 13:26:09 2009 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 723E528C13A for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:26:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.842 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.842 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 VrVkhDUaFe+X for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555333A680F for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.52.116.30]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.57985501; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:26:15 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:26:15 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:26:14 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:26:12 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Questions That Will Be Asked @ the End of the BoF Thread-Index: AcpSjLsEECYhCw+4DEGpXIgYs0uASg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3338987172_1559645" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2009 20:26:15.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD106DB0:01CA528C] Subject: [homegate] Questions That Will Be Asked @ the End of the BoF 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, 21 Oct 2009 20:26:09 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3338987172_1559645 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Questions to answer at the conclusion of the BoF (per RFC 5434): 1. Is there support to form a WG with the following charter? (That is, the charter itself is ready, as shown by community support.) 2. Does the community think that the problem statement is clear, well-scoped, solvable, and useful to solve? 3. Show of hands of people willing to review documents (or comment on the mailing list)? (Is there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.)?) 4. Who would be willing to serve as an editor for the following document(s)? (BOF chairs should take note of individuals who raise their hands, but it is also a useful gauge to see if there is a critical mass of editors to work on all the documents that are to be produced.) 5. Does the community think that given the charter revisions discussed during the BOF (subject to review and finalization on the mailing list), a WG should be formed? Is there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e., proposed documents) are the right set. 6. How many people feel that a WG should not be formed? (If the number of no responses is significant, it would help to ask those saying no why they are opposed.) -- Jason --B_3338987172_1559645 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Questions That Will Be Asked @ the End of the BoF Questions to answer at the conclusion of the BoF (per RFC 5434):
1.    Is there support to form a WG with the following c= harter?  (That is, the charter itself is ready, as shown by community s= upport.)
 
2.    Does the community think that the problem statement is= clear, well-scoped, solvable, and useful to solve?
 
3.    Show of hands of people willing to review documents (o= r comment on the mailing list)?  (Is there is a critical mass of partic= ipants willing to work on the problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, et= c.)?)
 
4.    Who would be willing to serve as an editor for the fol= lowing document(s)?  (BOF chairs should take note of individuals who ra= ise their hands, but it is also a useful gauge to see if there is a critical= mass of editors to work on all the documents that are to be produced.)
 
5.    Does the community think that given the charter revisi= ons discussed during the BOF (subject to review and finalization on the mail= ing list), a WG should be formed? Is there is agreement that the specific de= liverables (i.e., proposed documents) are the right set.
 
6.    How many people feel that a WG should not be formed? &= nbsp;(If the number of no responses is significant, it would help to ask tho= se saying no why they are opposed.)

 -- Jason
 
 
 --B_3338987172_1559645-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 21 13:34:12 2009 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 976B23A6979 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:34:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.08 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.921, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 PPl0ZnlzQ+cN for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8441B3A6928 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.15.92]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-NTF18.81050314; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PACDCEXCSMTP03.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:34:02 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:34:02 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:33:58 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Thread-Index: AcpSjdDGIItn0/deIkWdHefSMaV34A== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3338987638_1580620" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2009 20:34:02.0704 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3940500:01CA528D] Subject: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 21 Oct 2009 20:34:12 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3338987638_1580620 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Below is the draft agenda that we=B9ve been carrying forward in working documents for the BoF for a few months now. As a result, it is probably a bit out of date and our view of what we want to do has evolved somewhat. I= t is now time to take a hard look at this agenda, make sure it is in line wit= h the charter/objectives/priorities, and get ready for IETF 76. Deadline for a final agenda is: Wednesday, 28 October (one week away) Proposed Agenda: (120 minutes) 1 =AD Agenda, Goals, and Administrivia / Chairs 10 minutes 2 =AD HomeGate Problem Exploration 70 minutes =20 - Discussion of Problem Statement - Issues with DNSSEC, DNS Proxies - IPv6 support issues - Congestion-related support issues - Security issues - Zero-Config issues 3 =AD Open Discussion / All 30 minutes 4 =AD Questions and Next Steps / Chairs (per RFC5434) 10 minutes Does this look right? What should we change, remove, or add? We need help on Section 2 of the agenda. Feedback desired... Jason --B_3338987638_1580620 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Below is the draft agenda that we’ve been carrying forward in workin= g documents for the BoF for a few months now.  As a result, it is proba= bly a bit out of date and our view of what we want to do has evolved somewha= t.  It is now time to take a hard look at this agenda, make sure it is = in line with the charter/objectives/priorities, and get ready for IETF 76.
Deadline for a final agenda is: Wednesday, 28 October (one week away)

Proposed Agenda:  (120 minutes)
1 – Agenda, Goals, and Administrivia / Chairs     = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;     10 minutes
2 – HomeGate Problem Exploration       =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;      70 minutes     &nb= sp;         
            = - Discussion of Problem Statement        =             &nbs= p;   
            - I= ssues with DNSSEC, DNS Proxies        &nb= sp;            <= BR>             - I= Pv6 support issues          &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;
            - C= ongestion-related support issues        &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;   
            - S= ecurity issues           &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;       
            - Z= ero-Config issues          &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;         
3 – Open Discussion / All       &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;   30 minutes
4 – Questions and Next Steps / Chairs (per RFC5434)    = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;        10 minutes

Does this look right?  What should we change, remove, or add?  We need help on Section 2 of the agenda.

Feedback desired...

Jason
 --B_3338987638_1580620-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Oct 25 08:36:46 2009 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 9075128C0F8 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 OHIHlaFIaIP1 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98E828C0F4 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9PFauAn035026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:36:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:36:53 -0700 To: homegate@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [homegate] Charter discussion: is it sufficient to just point at an RFC? 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, 25 Oct 2009 15:36:46 -0000 Greetings again. The proposed charter seems good, but it possibly doesn't go far enough. >Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of "core" RFCs/BCPs which must be supported, followed by some "advanced" RFCs/BCPs which are to be considered optional. Many of the RFCs and BCPs that we will point to have some SHOULD-level and MAY-level requirements in them. A gateway vendor that wants to do the least amount necessary to meet the requirements will tend to not do things at this requirement level. Further, many RFCs have important security requirements that, in fact, aren't spelled out in the body of the document, but only in the Security Considerations section. (I guess we should all be glad they appear at all, but still...) Some RFCs have MUST-level and SHOULD-level requirements in the Security Considerations, but many just infer the importance of the requirements without explicitly talking about them. Thus, it is probably not sufficient to simply point to RFCs: we may need to call out specific parts in each RFC as requirements for our target audience. If others agree with me, I would change the above text to read: Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of requirements derived from core RFCs which must be supported. A secondary objective is to list desired-but-optional requirements from the same RFCs as well as other, non-core RFCs. (Editorial note: BCPs are RFCs, so we don't need to list them twice.) However: >This working group will not develop new or extend existing Internet protocols. Should any such need develop, the chairs will refer the work to another working group that is chartered to focus on the relevant problem. To some extent, we *will* extend the RFCs by changing the requirements levels in a particular context, namely SOHO and SMB gateways. For example, if we say "RFC WXYZ says that the FooBar message SHOULD be supported; for this profile, it MUST be supported", that is an extension. Thus, the sentence above should probably be: This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may create different requirements in the context of home gateways. If the Working Group believe that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG for further work in existing or new Working Groups. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Oct 25 09:00:41 2009 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 E42F128C0FF for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.472, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 lKOCRtCbEb5T for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7AA28C0EE for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9PG0oXw036054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:00:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:00:49 -0700 To: homegate@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities 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, 25 Oct 2009 16:00:42 -0000 >Proposed Charter: > >Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one form or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local network and the Internet. These technologies almost always involve a single entity - which is not purely a router - called a "home gateway". This entity connects a local user or users to various LAN services, providing some basic level of security. The majority of Internet users employ home gateways for this purpose. . . . >Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: > >The BoF/WG would work to improve the network experience that a SOHO / residential home user gets when using the Internet. However, in the first paragraph, we talk about SMB user as well. In Stockholm, there were a bunch of people that agreed that we can't differentiate between SOHO and SMB home gateways that well. If folks here still agree with that, a better wording for the above sentence would be: The Working Group would work to improve the network experience that a user of a home gateway gets when using the Internet. (Editorial: the charter is for the WG, not for the BoF.) >This includes providing a tiered specification for what RFCs and BCPs should be supported, in what order/priority, and in what manner. This will touch on standards such as: >o IPv6 >o DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs >o ECN >o RED (or other queue management) >o DNS Proxy BCPs >o Security-Related BCPs >o Other TBD > >The group shall prioritize work as follows: >1. IPv4-related topics >2. IPv6-related topics >3. DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.) >4. ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management) >5. Security-related topics The idea of "tiered" seems really tortured. In specific, it seems unlikely that we could get broad community agreement on which of security or IPv6 or DNS improvements is the most important, which is the second most important, and so on. There really are only two topics: IPv4 and IPv6. Security, DNS, congestion, and queuing are all inherent in both IPv4 and IPv6 (although they often have slightly different embodiments in each). A different way to spin this would be: This means specifying the requirements from different RFCs should be supported in home gateways. This will touch on standards such as: o IPv6 o DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs o ECN o RED (or other queue management) o DNS Proxy BCPs o Security-Related BCPs o Other TBD The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only support IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only support both IPv4 and IPv6. Note: during our chartering, we should also consider whether or not we create just one spec that demands inclusion of IPv6 for conformance. That may be too far for some, but it would certainly help lead to better interoperability for users. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Oct 26 08:02:37 2009 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 6632A3A6A8A for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:02:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 YP4CpIitHPUE for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5318E3A697E for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58461715; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:02:47 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:02:46 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:02:46 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:02:43 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: Paul Hoffman , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Charter discussion: is it sufficient to just point at an RFC? Thread-Index: AcpWTV5qgHyPFDzbuE6hF7kbL4tEmg== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2009 15:02:46.0915 (UTC) FILETIME=[60C00D30:01CA564D] Subject: Re: [homegate] Charter discussion: is it sufficient to just point at an RFC? 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:02:37 -0000 Both of those changes seem to make sense to me - thanks for your review and assistance in tweaking the draft charter. Jason On 10/25/09 11:36 AM, "Paul Hoffman" wrote: > Greetings again. The proposed charter seems good, but it possibly doesn't go > far enough. > >> Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of "core" >> RFCs/BCPs which must be supported, followed by some "advanced" RFCs/BCPs >> which are to be considered optional. > > Many of the RFCs and BCPs that we will point to have some SHOULD-level and > MAY-level requirements in them. A gateway vendor that wants to do the least > amount necessary to meet the requirements will tend to not do things at this > requirement level. > > Further, many RFCs have important security requirements that, in fact, aren't > spelled out in the body of the document, but only in the Security > Considerations section. (I guess we should all be glad they appear at all, but > still...) Some RFCs have MUST-level and SHOULD-level requirements in the > Security Considerations, but many just infer the importance of the > requirements without explicitly talking about them. > > Thus, it is probably not sufficient to simply point to RFCs: we may need to > call out specific parts in each RFC as requirements for our target audience. > If others agree with me, I would change the above text to read: > > Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of > requirements derived from core RFCs which must be supported. A secondary > objective is to list desired-but-optional requirements from the same RFCs as > well as other, non-core RFCs. > > (Editorial note: BCPs are RFCs, so we don't need to list them twice.) > > However: > >> This working group will not develop new or extend existing Internet >> protocols. Should any such need develop, the chairs will refer the work to >> another working group that is chartered to focus on the relevant problem. > > To some extent, we *will* extend the RFCs by changing the requirements levels > in a particular context, namely SOHO and SMB gateways. For example, if we say > "RFC WXYZ says that the FooBar message SHOULD be supported; for this profile, > it MUST be supported", that is an extension. Thus, the sentence above should > probably be: > > This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may create > different requirements in the context of home gateways. If the Working Group > believe that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG > for further work in existing or new Working Groups. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Oct 26 08:13:05 2009 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 55A8E3A6AB4 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 xPRkrX5ja-+W for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3C43A6AB1 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.15.92]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58463798; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:13:16 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PACDCEXCSMTP03.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:13:16 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:13:16 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:13:16 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: Paul Hoffman , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities Thread-Index: AcpWTte22J+GYOw9zkerI2N18TAp+w== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2009 15:13:16.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[D82AC580:01CA564E] Subject: Re: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:13:05 -0000 Paul - You made a couple more charter suggestions (which I have cut from this reply) which were good. Some feedback below. > The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only support > IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only support both > IPv4 and IPv6. I think your motivation to narrow scope as much as possible makes sense. However, I wonder if it would be unduly limiting to constrain the group to the production of two documents. I'd love to hear what others think. > Note: during our chartering, we should also consider whether or not we create > just one spec that demands inclusion of IPv6 for conformance. That may be too > far for some, but it would certainly help lead to better interoperability for > users. I think one spec will prove challenging, but we'll see. Regards Jason From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Oct 26 08:18:19 2009 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 AD9E93A6A03 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:18:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.011 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.990, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 Tql06OqZKY9d for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE633A6AC1 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-NTF18.81284624; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:08 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:09 -0400 Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:08 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:07 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Thread-Index: AcpSjdDGIItn0/deIkWdHefSMaV34ADwbRi+ In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3339400688_3646583" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2009 15:18:09.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[866F80E0:01CA564F] Cc: Ray Bellis , Bob Briscoe , John Brzozowski Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:19 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3339400688_3646583 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable We only have a couple more days to lock down our agenda =AD feedback is still desired. Ray Bellis --> Can you take on the section regarding DNSSEC and DNS Proxies= ? John Brzozowski --> Can you take on the section regarding IPv6? Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to congestion-related support? Q: Do we have volunteer to speak to any security-related issues? Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to any IPv4-related issues not already covered? Thanks Jason On 10/21/09 4:33 PM, "Jason Livingood" wrote: > Below is the draft agenda that we=B9ve been carrying forward in working > documents for the BoF for a few months now. As a result, it is probably = a bit > out of date and our view of what we want to do has evolved somewhat. It = is > now time to take a hard look at this agenda, make sure it is in line with= the > charter/objectives/priorities, and get ready for IETF 76. >=20 > Deadline for a final agenda is: Wednesday, 28 October (one week away) >=20 > Proposed Agenda: (120 minutes) > 1 =AD Agenda, Goals, and Administrivia / Chairs > 10 minutes > 2 =AD HomeGate Problem Exploration > 70 minutes =20 > - Discussion of Problem Statement > - Issues with DNSSEC, DNS Proxies > - IPv6 support issues > - Congestion-related support issues > - Security issues > - Zero-Config issues > 3 =AD Open Discussion / All > 30 minutes > 4 =AD Questions and Next Steps / Chairs (per RFC5434) > 10 minutes >=20 > Does this look right? What should we change, remove, or add? We need he= lp on > Section 2 of the agenda. >=20 > Feedback desired... >=20 > Jason >=20 --B_3339400688_3646583 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed We only have a couple more days to lock down our agenda – feedback i= s still desired.

Ray Bellis --> Can you take on the section regarding DNSSEC and D= NS Proxies?

John Brzozowski --> Can you take on the section regarding IPv6?
Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to congestion-related support?

Q: Do we have volunteer to speak to any security-related issues?

Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to any IPv4-related issues not already c= overed?

Thanks
Jason


On 10/21/09 4:33 PM, "Jason Livingood" <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Below is the draft agenda that we’ve been = carrying forward in working documents for the BoF for a few months now. &nbs= p;As a result, it is probably a bit out of date and our view of what we want= to do has evolved somewhat.  It is now time to take a hard look at thi= s agenda, make sure it is in line with the charter/objectives/priorities, an= d get ready for IETF 76.

Deadline for a final agenda is: Wednesday, 28 October (one week away)

Proposed Agenda:  (120 minutes)
1 – Agenda, Goals, and Administrivia / Chairs     = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;     10 minutes
2 – HomeGate Problem Exploration       =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;      70 minutes     &nb= sp;         
            = - Discussion of Problem Statement        =             &nbs= p;   
            - I= ssues with DNSSEC, DNS Proxies        &nb= sp;            <= BR>             - I= Pv6 support issues          &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;
            - C= ongestion-related support issues        &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;   
            - S= ecurity issues           &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;       
            - Z= ero-Config issues          &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;         
3 – Open Discussion / All       &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;   30 minutes
4 – Questions and Next Steps / Chairs (per RFC5434)    = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;        10 minutes

Does this look right?  What should we change, remove, or add?  We need help on Section 2 of the agenda.

Feedback desired...

Jason

--B_3339400688_3646583-- From laurent.toutain@gmail.com Mon Oct 26 08:28:30 2009 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 B6E9B3A6AAE for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 Z9IkKz5tmvVK for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com (mail-bw0-f219.google.com [209.85.218.219]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BDA3A67FC for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so2206750bwz.28 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=YtHZsIIfE3irFqqObSB7G3trHiHHuUJdTfb6jMBCa/4=; b=qga0uK2ILVJ4QeMImcOos27qhLe2G6oQ1L92GYW6r/qgJNKwj2ZcjdjoqW9X9chwCx UFtAolN5WK087Di+GpfXWP/XfXUyGJRIH5N270YJXXYw5kXvFajuOlRgWJg+7zCn7dtf vbAaburdCZd+6gniDRsEFzFzU0zrw14L/mO4c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=OVSshO6CCGth3LVcByLuR10uO+nYBZSVURwBplyEAq8Mfyjiw/igD1WTCjfvbf/Rp2 m9avSEHTAls8wlqIa5BN3MqLxZmJmRDBKyWjR+vsgR+ahUksRk8aPPeSsiczVtEIfmZf Zjrmc/Zk4dT/hp4lFun9G4gPPz8uoU85mkuH4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: laurent.toutain@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.92.131 with SMTP id r3mr743617fam.40.1256570917085; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:28:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Laurent Toutain Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:28:17 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6555a0e2b3f8fa45 Message-ID: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> To: Jason Livingood Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747942825e13a0476d8372c Cc: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:28:30 -0000 --00151747942825e13a0476d8372c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unmanaged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread over all available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or multi-homing will be a plus for such architecture. Laurent On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:13, Jason Livingood < jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > Paul - You made a couple more charter suggestions (which I have cut from > this reply) which were good. Some feedback below. > > > > The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only > support > > IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only support > both > > IPv4 and IPv6. > > I think your motivation to narrow scope as much as possible makes sense. > However, I wonder if it would be unduly limiting to constrain the group to > the production of two documents. I'd love to hear what others think. > > > Note: during our chartering, we should also consider whether or not we > create > > just one spec that demands inclusion of IPv6 for conformance. That may be > too > > far for some, but it would certainly help lead to better interoperability > for > > users. > > I think one spec will prove challenging, but we'll see. > > > Regards > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > > --00151747942825e13a0476d8372c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protoc= ols (or at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unma= naged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread= over all available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or mul= ti-homing will be a plus for such architecture.

Laurent

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:13= , Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Paul - You made a= couple more charter suggestions (which I have cut from
this reply) which were good. =A0Some feedback below.


> The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only= support
> IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only supp= ort both
> IPv4 and IPv6.

I think your motivation to narrow scope as much as possible makes sense. However, I wonder if it would be unduly limiting to constrain the group to<= br> the production of two documents. =A0I'd love to hear what others think.=

> Note: during our chartering, we should also consider whether or not we= create
> just one spec that demands inclusion of IPv6 for conformance. That may= be too
> far for some, but it would certainly help lead to better interoperabil= ity for
> users.

I think one spec will prove challenging, but we'll see.


Regards
Jason

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


--00151747942825e13a0476d8372c-- From iiarmar@upvnet.upv.es Mon Oct 26 08:45:25 2009 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 8CB313A68DD for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:45:25 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 3PI9QRaz7JuO for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marfik.cc.upv.es (marfik.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF7728C265 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpx.upv.es (smtpxv.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.46]) by marfik.cc.upv.es (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n9QFjYfS029942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:34 +0100 Received: from smtp.upv.es (celaeno.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.55]) by smtpx.upv.es (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9QFjYT6028273 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:34 +0100 Received: from [158.42.160.154] (gco-artundo3.iteam.upv.es [158.42.160.154]) by smtp.upv.es (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n9QFjXaJ004763 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:34 +0100 From: =?windows-1252?Q?I=F1igo_Artundo?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "homegate@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:45:25 -0000 Hi, I agree on the comments by Paul Hoffman on the minimum requirements for the home gateway, as manufacturers will try to strip down to a minimum the set of required (read MUST) features on the box to reduce costs. Relating DNSSEC, it might be useful to have a look at the documents in dnssec.net to see up-to-date field deployments and problems with its implementation in broadband routers, specifically: DNSSEC - Compatibility Test of Consumer Broadband Routers Joakim Åhlund, Patrik Wallström, Feb 2008 DNSSEC Impact on Broadband Routers and Firewalls Ray Bellis, Nominet UK, Lisa Phifer, Core Competence, Sep 2008 Iñigo Jason Livingood escribió: > We only have a couple more days to lock down our agenda – feedback is > still desired. > > *Ray Bellis *--> Can you take on the section regarding DNSSEC and DNS > Proxies? > > *John Brzozowski -*-> Can you take on the section regarding IPv6? > > Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to congestion-related support? > > Q: Do we have volunteer to speak to any security-related issues? > > Q: Do we have a volunteer to speak to any IPv4-related issues not > already covered? > > Thanks > Jason > > > On 10/21/09 4:33 PM, "Jason Livingood" > wrote: > > Below is the draft agenda that we’ve been carrying forward in > working documents for the BoF for a few months now. As a result, > it is probably a bit out of date and our view of what we want to > do has evolved somewhat. It is now time to take a hard look at > this agenda, make sure it is in line with the > charter/objectives/priorities, and get ready for IETF 76. > > Deadline for a final agenda is: Wednesday, 28 October (one week away) > * > Proposed Agenda*: (120 minutes) > 1 – Agenda, Goals, and Administrivia / Chairs 10 minutes > 2 – HomeGate Problem Exploration 70 minutes > /- Discussion of Problem Statement > - Issues with DNSSEC, DNS Proxies > - IPv6 support issues > - Congestion-related support issues > - Security issues > - Zero-Config issues > /3 – Open Discussion / All 30 minutes > 4 – Questions and Next Steps / Chairs (per RFC5434) 10 minutes > > Does this look right? What should we change, remove, or add? _We > need help on Section 2 of the agenda. > _ > Feedback desired... > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homegate@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Mon Oct 26 08:57:08 2009 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 B888D3A68C9 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.928, 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 SYIUich3iI2Q for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981053A683E for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=ZzE8tvqB0RdM3w4pe2glG9XYd/1e6eLOyOLjgpO0gTGtXpaI5pbH+0r6 Ja/yYl3BRtBtarZ/eQyyk2osm67zKCTQ8WY+Eij3NmjiBSOEtavsnYsNL 8kM80PnmwPP37rD; 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=1256572641; x=1288108641; 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.Bellis@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[home gate]=20Draft=20BoF=20Agenda=20-=20Your=20Feedback=20Need ed|Date:=20Mon,=2026=20Oct=202009=2015:57:19=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20|To:=20Jason=20Livingood =20|Cc:=20"homegate@ie tf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20=20; bh=JWu6IfSAku9LaOfBbZDMRpkLNOOUYZQCoyPcwK1z1pE=; b=G+/YXnTeWGm2rT2i81U8iaOj24V+YQuWqPZLaRRbQT0N46LNAuUf11gV e212+V4MjZGT2y7bqEs0xSLA6QmdfoxIgThdPgKI47MDhKOhQ4GyngbQL 7DLFilJF/WxNH48; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,626,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="13901063" Received: from notes1.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.128]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2009 15:57:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Livingood MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 Message-ID: From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:57:19 +0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes1/Nominet(Release 7.0.1FP1 | May 25, 2006) at 26/10/2009 03:57:19 PM, Serialize complete at 26/10/2009 03:57:19 PM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0057A55C8025765B_=" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:57:08 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0057A55C8025765B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PiBXZSBvbmx5IGhhdmUgYSBjb3VwbGUgbW9yZSBkYXlzIHRvIGxvY2sgZG93biBvdXIgYWdlbmRh IOKAkyBmZWVkYmFjayANCj4gaXMgc3RpbGwgZGVzaXJlZC4NCj4gDQo+IFJheSBCZWxsaXMgLS0+ IENhbiB5b3UgdGFrZSBvbiB0aGUgc2VjdGlvbiByZWdhcmRpbmcgRE5TU0VDIGFuZCBETlMgDQpQ cm94aWVzPyANCg0KWWVzLCBJIGNhbiB0YWtlIG9uIEROUyBwcm94aWVzIGFuZCBETlNTRUMgKGFs YmVpdCBvbmx5IGluIHNvIGZhciBhcyANCnByb3hpZXMgYWZmZWN0IHRoZSB0cmFuc3BvcnQgb2Yg RE5TU0VDKS4NCiANClJheQ0KDQo= --=_alternative 0057A55C8025765B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFdlIG9ubHkgaGF2ZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBtb3JlIGRh eXMgdG8gbG9jayBkb3duIG91ciBhZ2VuZGEg4oCTIGZlZWRiYWNrDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGlzIHN0 aWxsIGRlc2lyZWQuPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFJheSBCZWxsaXMgLS0mZ3Q7IENhbiB5 b3UgdGFrZSBvbiB0aGUgc2VjdGlvbiByZWdhcmRpbmcgRE5TU0VDIGFuZA0KRE5TIFByb3hpZXM/ IDxicj4NCjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+WWVzLCBJIGNhbiB0YWtl IG9uIEROUyBwcm94aWVzIGFuZCBETlNTRUMgKGFsYmVpdA0Kb25seSBpbiBzbyBmYXIgYXMgcHJv eGllcyBhZmZlY3QgdGhlIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBvZiBETlNTRUMpLjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0 dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+Jm5ic3A7PGJyPg0KUmF5PC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+DQo= --=_alternative 0057A55C8025765B_=-- From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Mon Oct 26 08:59:46 2009 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 81C353A67F8 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.724, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 YHBwbC3Nm7HN for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA40A3A6AB1 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=H9582KIzz592oyklCuZxe0SlIpdIHE9iZ//3KYRRj5U0Grg8kh75v6Lq AEbuapNVtiS+ZVmMjiLyanTqzVZEQl2C7qdfXJOKzytj6G5EUWpe3epJA lcKwZfOVhSD5H9J; 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=1256572770; x=1288108770; 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.Bellis@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[home gate]=20Draft=20BoF=20Agenda=20-=20Your=20Feedback=20Need ed|Date:=20Mon,=2026=20Oct=202009=2015:59:28=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20|To:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?I =3DF1igo_Artundo?=3D=20|Cc:=20"hom egate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |In-Reply-To:=20<4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> |References:=20=20<4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es>; bh=Je8JQqONI4g1ttL8n7oVncZfjEfzhbMd1m9olK0opM4=; b=pa09lnKcmlAKZOI0c0/8iEYDWOlcQX5AKyUckpnlHOgVuCNOkbJeY6Ru CqDuNK5P5QT8ym3+ZuQTnUNmMgbpnjTH2QPP3IVe9yE8uSFlZa+hgboyb uMhgK9Lt0sbXt56; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,626,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="13901255" Received: from notes1.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.128]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2009 15:59:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> References: <4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo_Artundo?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 Message-ID: From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:59:28 +0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes1/Nominet(Release 7.0.1FP1 | May 25, 2006) at 26/10/2009 03:59:29 PM, Serialize complete at 26/10/2009 03:59:29 PM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0057D8008025765B_=" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 15:59:46 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0057D8008025765B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Relating DNSSEC, it might be useful to have a look at the documents in=20 > dnssec.net to see up-to-date field deployments and problems with its=20 > implementation in broadband routers, specifically: >=20 > DNSSEC - Compatibility Test of Consumer Broadband Routers=20 > > Joakim =C5hlund, Patrik Wallstr=F6m, Feb 2008 >=20 > DNSSEC Impact on Broadband Routers and Firewalls=20 > > Ray Bellis, Nominet UK, Lisa Phifer, Core Competence, Sep 2008 Inigo, You will find that the findings of those reports have already been done in = IETF language, namely BCP 152 (RFC 5625). kind regards, Ray --=20 Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet e: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 --=_alternative 0057D8008025765B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Relating DNSSEC, it might be useful to have a look at the documents in
> dnssec.net to see up-to-date field deployments and problems with its
> implementation in broadband routers, specifically:
>
> DNSSEC - Compatibility Test of Consumer Broadband Routers
> <http://iis.se/docs/Routertester=5Fen.pdf>
> Joakim =C5hlund, Patrik Wallstr=F6m, Feb 2008
>
> DNSSEC Impact on Broadband Routers and Firewalls
> <http://download.nominet.org.uk/dns= sec-cpe/DNSSEC-CPE-Report.pdf>
> Ray Bellis, Nominet UK, Lisa Phifer, Core Competence, Sep 2008
Inigo,

You will find that the findings of those reports have already been done in IETF language, namely BCP 152 (RFC 5625).

kind regards,

Ray

--
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211


 --=_alternative 0057D8008025765B_=-- From iiarmar@upvnet.upv.es Mon Oct 26 09:14:37 2009 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 D1EB23A68AA for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:14:37 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 v+rpbLe+kArz for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marfik.cc.upv.es (marfik.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724B128C0CE for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpx.upv.es (smtpxv.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.46]) by marfik.cc.upv.es (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n9QGEj2A002999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:14:45 +0100 Received: from smtp.upv.es (celaeno.cc.upv.es [158.42.249.55]) by smtpx.upv.es (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9QGEiWh012315; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:14:45 +0100 Received: from [158.42.160.154] (gco-artundo3.iteam.upv.es [158.42.160.154]) by smtp.upv.es (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n9QGEitu016989; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:14:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4AE5CAF4.6010704@upvnet.upv.es> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:14:44 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo_Artundo?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk References: <4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 16:14:38 -0000 True, as of August 2009, thanks for the update! Then obviously RFC5625 should also be among the RFCs to be included for review and adaptation in Homegate. Iñigo Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk escribió: > > Relating DNSSEC, it might be useful to have a look at the documents in > > dnssec.net to see up-to-date field deployments and problems with its > > implementation in broadband routers, specifically: > > > > DNSSEC - Compatibility Test of Consumer Broadband Routers > > > > Joakim Åhlund, Patrik Wallström, Feb 2008 > > > > DNSSEC Impact on Broadband Routers and Firewalls > > > > Ray Bellis, Nominet UK, Lisa Phifer, Core Competence, Sep 2008 > > Inigo, > > You will find that the findings of those reports have already been > done in IETF language, namely BCP 152 (RFC 5625). > > kind regards, > > Ray > > -- > Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET > Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet > e: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211 > > From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Mon Oct 26 09:21:54 2009 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 4FE233A6A83 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:21:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.615 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.683, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 M36DFQlEpDWI for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269513A67F8 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=PVNJKjN+z8UMH1BC2+DlQcVGTLV0OxGHXt5d3E//7/ukQwVB2Hqnoxx7 moCSrsPJy38pmJXIxvzTxxhO2WwcOYbz20ZtD0ymdruEkwsUIktAi/EdV MULJacTUCDGUpYj; 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=1256574127; x=1288110127; 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.Bellis@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[home gate]=20Draft=20BoF=20Agenda=20-=20Your=20Feedback=20Need ed|Date:=20Mon,=2026=20Oct=202009=2016:22:04=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20|To:=20=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?I =3DF1igo_Artundo?=3D=20|Cc:=20"hom egate@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |In-Reply-To:=20<4AE5CAF4.6010704@upvnet.upv.es> |References:=20=20<4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es>=20=20<4AE5CAF4.6010704@upvnet.upv.es>; bh=HGB/WgnyRKI8FgvR7GAToqwERU0zpjk1oNKxH2+Inlk=; b=qul4MWIpuyE3pt/w5+NYAAc8wL8m4vTldn/A4lalu+ey1fQP2rAtHfcd twz4j6/Ix/bq/04yHaZ8cwuknAtS8alB6sMwKgapBYrhnTYgHbTWNtIDp SUhZX+UViiKiNMg; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,626,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="13903463" Received: from notes1.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.128]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2009 16:22:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4AE5CAF4.6010704@upvnet.upv.es> References: <4AE5C41E.5000804@upvnet.upv.es> <4AE5CAF4.6010704@upvnet.upv.es> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1igo_Artundo?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 Message-ID: From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:22:04 +0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes1/Nominet(Release 7.0.1FP1 | May 25, 2006) at 26/10/2009 04:22:04 PM, Serialize complete at 26/10/2009 04:22:04 PM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0059E9748025765B_=" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 26 Oct 2009 16:21:54 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0059E9748025765B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > True, as of August 2009, thanks for the update! > Then obviously RFC5625 should also be among the RFCs to be included for > review and adaptation in Homegate. It shouldn't need review or adaption - it's the current state of the art and was (I believe) one of the documents from which the seed of the idea for this BOF came. Ray --=_alternative 0059E9748025765B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> True, as of August 2009, thanks for the update!
> Then obviously RFC5625 should also be among the RFCs to be included for
> review and adaptation in Homegate.
It shouldn't need review or adaption - it's the current state of the art and was (I believe) one of the documents from which the seed of the idea for this BOF came.

Ray
--=_alternative 0059E9748025765B_=-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Oct 26 10:07:21 2009 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 AA0173A6836 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.606 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.440, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 SpLUTb34V+tq for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF263A67AC for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9QH7Wnr019155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:07:31 -0700 To: Laurent Toutain From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 26 Oct 2009 17:07:21 -0000 At 4:28 PM +0100 10/26/09, Laurent Toutain wrote: >I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unmanaged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread over all available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or multi-homing will be a plus for such architecture. Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because I am aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet ports. Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would be a "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the extremely small experience we have. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From jmpolk@cisco.com Mon Oct 26 11:04:39 2009 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 2A7EE3A6AC5 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, 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 PqlBoiKsybTQ for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:04:38 -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 34E543A69A2 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:04:38 -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: ArAFAPeA5UqrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACIGrlGlyOCQIF/BIFe X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,627,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="217971904" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2009 18:04:51 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9QI4pAJ025306; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:04:51 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:04:51 -0700 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.89.13.9]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:04:51 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:04:49 -0500 To: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org From: "James M. Polk" In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2009 18:04:51.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0191C80:01CA5666] Subject: Re: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities 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, 26 Oct 2009 18:04:39 -0000 At 11:00 AM 10/25/2009, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >Proposed Charter: > > > >Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of > one form or another within the home, small office/home office > (SOHO) or small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between > the local network and the Internet. These technologies almost > always involve a single entity - which is not purely a router - > called a "home gateway". This entity connects a local user or > users to various LAN services, providing some basic level of > security. The majority of Internet users employ home gateways for > this purpose. > >. . . > > >Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: > > > >The BoF/WG would work to improve the network experience that a > SOHO / residential home user gets when using the Internet. > >However, in the first paragraph, we talk about SMB user as well. In >Stockholm, there were a bunch of people that agreed that we can't >differentiate between SOHO and SMB home gateways that well. If folks >here still agree with that, a better wording for the above sentence would be: > >The Working Group would work to improve the network experience that >a user of a home gateway gets when using the Internet. this is a good suggestion - based on the first paragraph >(Editorial: the charter is for the WG, not for the BoF.) > > >This includes providing a tiered specification for what RFCs and > BCPs should be supported, in what order/priority, and in what > manner. This will touch on standards such as: > >o IPv6 > >o DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs > >o ECN > >o RED (or other queue management) > >o DNS Proxy BCPs > >o Security-Related BCPs > >o Other TBD > > > >The group shall prioritize work as follows: > >1. IPv4-related topics > >2. IPv6-related topics > >3. DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.) > >4. ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management) > >5. Security-related topics > >The idea of "tiered" seems really tortured. In specific, it seems >unlikely that we could get broad community agreement on which of >security or IPv6 or DNS improvements is the most important, which is >the second most important, and so on. There really are only two >topics: IPv4 and IPv6. Security, DNS, congestion, and queuing are >all inherent in both IPv4 and IPv6 (although they often have >slightly different embodiments in each). > >A different way to spin this would be: > >This means specifying the requirements from different RFCs should be >supported in home gateways. This will touch on standards such as: >o IPv6 >o DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs >o ECN >o RED (or other queue management) >o DNS Proxy BCPs >o Security-Related BCPs >o Other TBD > >The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that >only support IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways >that only support both IPv4 and IPv6. > >Note: during our chartering, we should also consider whether or not >we create just one spec that demands inclusion of IPv6 for >conformance. That may be too far for some, but it would certainly >help lead to better interoperability for users. > >--Paul Hoffman, Director >--VPN Consortium >_______________________________________________ >homegate mailing list >homegate@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate From lars.eggert@nokia.com Tue Oct 27 04:01:24 2009 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 06DE13A68E6 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, 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 jHD428GrpxiJ for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88133A6837 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:708:40:fff2:225:ff:fe45:eccf] (lars.local [IPv6:2001:708:40:fff2:225:ff:fe45:eccf] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9RB1MDp081036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:01:22 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-49--838791670; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Lars Eggert In-Reply-To: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:01:22 +0200 Message-Id: <78BC4320-E3E4-47F9-82CF-D02A33AE512E@nokia.com> References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> To: Laurent Toutain X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [IPv6:2001:708:40:fff1::1]); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:01:23 +0200 (EET) Cc: Paul Hoffman , "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Deliverables and priorities 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, 27 Oct 2009 11:01:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail-49--838791670 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Hi, On 2009-10-26, at 17:28, Laurent Toutain wrote: > I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or > at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of > unmanaged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic > should be spread over all available links,... . More ever routers > auto-configuration or multi-homing will be a plus for such > architecture. the MIF and MPTCP working groups are looking at enabling the use of multiple interfaces and paths. Their future results may be something that a HOMEGATE recommendation could point to at some point. (Neither of them deal with routing, however, but I think you didn't mean routing in the classical sense of the term anyway.) Lars --Apple-Mail-49--838791670 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGbDCCAyUw ggKOoAMCAQICEAdjk36sXKbnVn15S0/qUp0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA5MDYxNTExMjYxNFoXDTEwMDYxNTExMjYx NFowXDEPMA0GA1UEBBMGRWdnZXJ0MQ0wCwYDVQQqEwRMYXJzMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtMYXJzIEVnZ2Vy dDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9raWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7mR8A+Pn0/FsUkMX6Pyjw+FL3IFcJk8GaKV5VJ40TMI0Wh8oq20cqA9X uqnVDW9WztKwH+o+msJenLwWpprbpJm4TImYGbnUJxYyN8gb81aiX1Bw2xCpJ5z3H2+8DsReJLuY Rdl4bVvaIxLIL4odmfsRwzPyNkOK8LRtfl6OPcaDOlFWzbikULfIVGGu7BqK4lxQSpYwwpZkOMOB 6nnBSfUOtBEmqO+qZG/nL/JxWFV5vxQgg4XHbsMMTxFf6+ji18BD09BUIfDLTuJoCzFmQhrM9vLT VuRhHWSL20LoafGjXv6mPt3i9IGJHpVb2dMQUgOgRyWHTKiUJVU/rUTdWwIDAQABo14wXDAqBgUr ZQEEAQQhMB8CAQAwGjAYAgEEBBNMMnVNeWZmQk5VYk5KSmNkWjJzMCAGA1UdEQQZMBeBFWxhcnMu ZWdnZXJ0QG5va2lhLmNvbTAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBADUx+67n98wt I1vydB90HeSZP4Y64VCxxb0NxGGFvfc2+JdVKeHJ/xT+l+ygYKsWNwJJprkPi4WZ5G0crkq4VK1H 5drEJIztpSPVfWI05vPidaaGuuuCR+6MvJMtOTEYEvc/6eovBnkrzRf9x5x5EyuJXAWTeuBADg80 QI3vQ1tZMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTAT BgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUg Q29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIG A1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25h bC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAzMDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNV BAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnKmVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAK MNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7 n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8YQRAHmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAw QwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJl ZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRl TGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9M Ibj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowg T2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAxAwggMMAgEBMHYw YjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAq BgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAHY5N+rFym51Z9eUtP 6lKdMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFvMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkF MQ8XDTA5MTAyNzExMDEyMlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFAnvIEVZSoNDs0BgBD2ALNwmdilHMIGF BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGlu ZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBD QQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVy c29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AASCAQCq6nQvQLofssH+V3Q2dAeetmh6J61ixqTkde+JNh6T0e01QkGFvzpXlJkDidHRi3IW30R5 4gLNc6toh7RWvvhRWepSKr6tcGp+66qwBkl0CEzhuzuxRhY5FIWqhyGQ9NNc5dxf3umB9j2fKGBN TiTfKLvVsFftS7LWqqqFFxv8u9E0r7CqeMH9+P4YHdtnd2AEKtF30DJ/28j9+0jShq7B9y0aT2dF RzvRzgEpk5Yd7MhXVPonnoWSIxO6P/aDdjb7DjAr+POlCsfjfKn3bGmrBxozk1E0QvkG/UbxjjMx EsxckhkZu+QQjBRBhtP11y6v3ONfa/57Hs2m+FArroPrAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-49--838791670-- From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Oct 27 05:20:03 2009 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 899563A68FE for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.396 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 C4CQPUscY4VT for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59653A67D1 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.15.118]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58579262; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:20:14 -0400 Received: from NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) by PACDCEXCSMTP04.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:20:15 -0400 Received: from 69.249.145.88 ([69.249.145.88]) by NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:20:14 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:20:10 -0400 From: John Jason Brzozowski To: Jason Livingood , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Thread-Index: AcpSjdDGIItn0/deIkWdHefSMaV34ADwbRi+ACwTnNc= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2009 12:20:15.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6B07C20:01CA56FF] Cc: Ray Bellis , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 27 Oct 2009 12:20:03 -0000 Sure thing, thanks. On 10/26/09 11:18 AM, "Jason Livingood" wrote: > John Brzozowski --> Can you take on the section regarding IPv6? ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 ========================================= From laurent.toutain@gmail.com Wed Oct 28 06:16:32 2009 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 D65413A69F2 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 cFyYXirDgmgv for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AECA28C16B for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so979970bwz.29 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=x5J0+Hm2aqsspM8tWJcGpp6aVQHPH2lnPIa92Jcg9mk=; b=c4ewiwz+o62qvGQor5TNVqCGu3Ha5QrXBW4vog3HmEvODORHaoo9cwp+e5PYT7aRSX yyojFhycN8p8acGsPWjNUVywG7iJ9DWrpb2JSZRFuB+O+O7mCKsO8pClq8nQc4DPbcM1 ofZ7UB60dxRMInRteo+M3U/9uZCtXg2l26wCE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=o5IVvSCzrHnLPYeirvfcxjUcK1YBeJ1yUx5TMFk0dHkZwhvHsgUzcR2AIRKkBmeRgn JG6+6KLxR9DB09MaooP4dXsCdHbvBWuDOd5VwtEnNhPQ2YAGhoabRXmhRV20C8XsFNyl 6xUFPEETRp0FWketfP/BagwQhAH2l3tOFcssQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: laurent.toutain@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.15.148 with SMTP id k20mr1003374faa.6.1256735800267; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> From: Laurent Toutain Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:16:20 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 19336e209541fb7b Message-ID: <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747373af392ac0476fe9aa3 Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 28 Oct 2009 13:16:33 -0000 --00151747373af392ac0476fe9aa3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 18:07, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 4:28 PM +0100 10/26/09, Laurent Toutain wrote: > >I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or at > least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unmanaged > networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread over > all available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or > multi-homing will be a plus for such architecture. > > Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because I am > aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet ports. > Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would be a > "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the extremely small > experience we have. > Yes, but is the working group will cover the case of two or several HOMEGATE in a home environment. This is not totally science fiction, a user may have an ADSL and a WiMAX access and a HOMEGATE router for each of them ? Will HOMEGATE router offer support for routers inside the domestic network to be auto-configured and routing inside the home network should take into account some QoS consideration ? If an answer to one of these questions is yes, I think routing protocols should be in the scope of the WG. Laurent > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > --00151747373af392ac0476fe9aa3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 18:07, Paul Hoffman = <paul.hoffman= @vpnc.org> wrote:
At 4:28 PM +0100 10/26/09, Laurent Toutain wrote:
>I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or= at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unmanaged n= etworks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread over a= ll available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or multi-homi= ng will be a plus for such architecture.

Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" becaus= e I am aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet p= orts. Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would= be a "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the e= xtremely small experience we have.
=A0
Yes, but is the working group will cover th= e case of two or several HOMEGATE in a home environment. This is not totally science fiction, a user may have an ADSL and a WiMAX access and a HOMEGATE router for each of them ?

Will HOMEGATE router offer support for routers inside the = domestic network to be auto-configured and routing inside the home network = should take into account some QoS consideration ?

If an answer to on= e of these questions is yes, I think routing protocols should be in the sco= pe of the WG.

Laurent

=A0

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


--00151747373af392ac0476fe9aa3-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 28 08:37:56 2009 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 9E15128C1E7 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 M90FJOhc50PT for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B5628C1E0 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9SFbxuV071556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:38:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:37:58 -0700 To: Laurent Toutain From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 28 Oct 2009 15:37:56 -0000 At 2:16 PM +0100 10/28/09, Laurent Toutain wrote: >Yes, but is the working group will cover the case of two or several HOMEGATE in a home environment. This is not totally science fiction, a user may have an ADSL and a WiMAX access and a HOMEGATE router for each of them ? That seems like a real scenario, and one that will be more common in the future, but should it be part of this WG? That is, how can we specify best current practices on this type of routing if we don't know what "best" is? It seems like this might be better handled as a few Experimental RFCs now, with a BCP a few years later when we have more experience. >Will HOMEGATE router offer support for routers inside the domestic network to be auto-configured and routing inside the home network should take into account some QoS consideration ? They probably will, but we don't know how. We should probably list this in our document as "something homegate vendors should be aware of" without saying what it is best for them to do. >If an answer to one of these questions is yes, I think routing protocols should be in the scope of the WG. Again, only if we have something to say about what is "best". Short of that, we can list alternatives that they should consider. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From martyf@gmail.com Wed Oct 28 09:22:02 2009 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 0D60C28C21B for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:22:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 IfiRUo0x-OyH for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com (mail-bw0-f219.google.com [209.85.218.219]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEFD28C219 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so1154422bwz.28 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=VNtUDqaOHyFaWqqVWHb9VM5gKDaFXAbUDIV4gNLp/iI=; b=EI18e7r0bMZWxzzl1CtRMxRIKsg2kY2Y5CS3CoizZ7qIpLwglxAooyh8mBqT9zSk+I q+BR94ulNS+pJVIUBVQX3ytN9haSJ5ew5A5IBePxWNEtanc5ePgevU8SmaiP6g9JXO7Y uO1Ea9MX6O0Wx6o6vaUzna7TAqOfMCj4qAN1c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=HhsaJz+mOyUU6w4jyQucNqC4VSed2wbRZBa7lRs+TYJw0MuqSUxv+uJcNWkhY1DhHO vyGa4L1heAs/vwGR9xc5DkMbM5cM/Xg9LSQp7kXFevwaPx9JocNcnK92v1tGwSs2mKjC hcO0J9KuVo7+2VQuqHrugPbhEXs/POx+I/JiE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.32.201 with SMTP id e9mr710496bkd.122.1256746933198; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> From: Martin Focazio Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:21:53 -0400 Message-ID: <6eae86940910280921q59960e85k28def13de773956b@mail.gmail.com> To: Laurent Toutain Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555b16a86a0770477013263 Cc: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 28 Oct 2009 16:22:02 -0000 --00032555b16a86a0770477013263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because I am >> aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet ports. >> Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would be a >> "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the extremely small >> experience we have. > > There are already some gateway devices out there that are using dual WAN connectivity - wireline + 3G for example. It certainly is an interesting model, and as LTE wireless comes along, I think that it would not be unreasonable to think of the wireline WAN connection being "fattened" via a docked mobile wireless device. Certainly some support for multiple WAN connection is not an unrealistic goal at this stage. --00032555b16a86a0770477013263 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" becaus= e I am aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet p= orts. Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would= be a "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the e= xtremely small experience we have.

There are already some gateway= devices out there that are using dual WAN connectivity - wireline + 3G for= example. It certainly is an interesting model, and as LTE wireless comes a= long, I think that it would not be unreasonable to think of the wireline WA= N connection being "fattened" via a docked mobile wireless device= . =A0

Certainly some support for multiple WAN connection is n= ot an unrealistic goal at this stage.=A0

--00032555b16a86a0770477013263-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 28 14:01:00 2009 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 079693A69A0 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:01:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 gHj0lfzDER6v for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92B53A6932 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.195.246.152]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58821168; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:01:06 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by NJMDCEXCRLY01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:01:06 -0400 Received: from 147.191.227.143 ([147.191.227.143]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:01:06 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:01:05 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: Martin Focazio , Laurent Toutain Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Routing protocols Thread-Index: AcpYEcNutU2sL5GY30yqMW4i2GvcDQ== In-Reply-To: <6eae86940910280921q59960e85k28def13de773956b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3339594065_4013764" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2009 21:01:06.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[C49ECBF0:01CA5811] Cc: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 28 Oct 2009 21:01:00 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3339594065_4013764 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable On 10/28/09 12:21 PM, "Martin Focazio" wrote: >=20 >>> Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because I am >>> aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet port= s. >>> Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would b= e a >>> "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the extremely sma= ll >>> experience we have. >=20 > There are already some gateway devices out there that are using dual WAN > connectivity - wireline + 3G for example. It certainly is an interesting > model, and as LTE wireless comes along, I think that it would not be > unreasonable to think of the wireline WAN connection being "fattened" via= a > docked mobile wireless device. =A0 >=20 Certainly some support for multiple WAN connection is not an unrealistic goal at this stage.=A0 [JL] It=B9s not unreasonable to consider that this may be a focus eventually, but I believe this is a corner case today (that will grow over time of course). As such, it probably makes sense to maintain a focus on single-homed devices first since we have much to do, affecting a larger current and potential user base. We can then get to multi-homed devices later on, after consulting with the ADs for guidance, so we should keep it in mind as we proceed. Jason --B_3339594065_4013764 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [homegate] Routing protocols On 10/28/09 12:21 PM, "Martin Focazio" <martyf@gmail.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>
Few home gateways have more than one= WAN link. I say "few" because I am aware that some aimed at the S= MB market that have two WAN Ethernet ports. Having said that, it is far from= clear that anyone can say what would be a "best current practice"= for such home gateways, given the extremely small experience we have.

There are already some gateway devices out there that are using dual WAN co= nnectivity - wireline + 3G for example. It certainly is an interesting model= , and as LTE wireless comes along, I think that it would not be unreasonable= to think of the wireline WAN connection being "fattened" via a do= cked mobile wireless device. =A0

= Certainly some support for multiple WAN connect= ion is not an unrealistic goal at this stage.=A0


[JL] It’s not unreasonable to consider that this may be a focus event= ually, but I believe this is a corner case today (that will grow over time o= f course).  As such, it probably makes sense to maintain a focus on sin= gle-homed devices first since we have much to do, affecting a larger current= and potential user base.  We can then get to multi-homed devices later= on, after consulting with the ADs for guidance, so we should keep it in min= d as we proceed.

Jason --B_3339594065_4013764-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 28 14:17:08 2009 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 0877428C22F for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 gJwMzZuHnyJr for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA1228C22C for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.195.246.152]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58823754; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:17:18 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by NJMDCEXCRLY01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:17:19 -0400 Received: from 147.191.227.143 ([147.191.227.143]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:17:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:17:16 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Thread-Index: AcpSjdDGIItn0/deIkWdHefSMaV34AFhjVpH In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3339595036_4016398" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2009 21:17:19.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[08025040:01CA5814] Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed 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, 28 Oct 2009 21:17:08 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3339595036_4016398 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Our draft agenda has been uploaded to: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/homegate.txt We could still use someone to speak about congestion issues with home gateway devices. Do I have any volunteers? Also, security-related issues =AD need a volunteer as well. Thanks Jason --B_3339595036_4016398 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda - Your Feedback Needed Our draft agenda has been uploaded to:
http://= www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/homegate.txt

We could still use someone to speak about congestion issues with home gatew= ay devices.  Do I have any volunteers?

Also, security-related issues – need a volunteer as well.

Thanks
Jason --B_3339595036_4016398-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 28 14:25:02 2009 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 D26F528C14E for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] 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 fn7ZJKG93DxF for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F413A3A6800 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.195.246.152]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.58824915; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:25:12 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by NJMDCEXCRLY01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:25:12 -0400 Received: from 147.191.227.143 ([147.191.227.143]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:25:12 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:25:06 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] BoF Logistics & Background Thread-Index: AcpSjFp15U0hHLqCMEO+Chy4tHO/SwFiMPhp In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3339595506_4047356" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2009 21:25:12.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[2260FEE0:01CA5815] Subject: Re: [homegate] BoF Logistics & Background 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, 28 Oct 2009 21:25:02 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3339595506_4047356 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Based on your feedback, here is an updated charter. I have one comment embedded inline in the document for the group here. --JL Title: Broadband Home Gateway [HomeGate] BoF =20 Proposed IETF Area: Transport =20 Transport Area Directors: Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) Magnus Westerlund (magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com) =20 BoF Organizers:=20 Jason Livingood (jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com) Dave Oran (oran@cisco.com) =20 =20 Proposed Charter: Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one form or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local network and the Internet. These technologies almost always involve a single entity - which is not purely a router - called a "home gateway". This entity connects a local user or users to various LAN services, providing some basic level of security. The majority of Internet users employ home gateways for this purpose. =20 However, many serious, long-term problems face users of home gateways today= . At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device manufacturers= , and/or the organizations that specify requirements for such devices, are no= t certain which IETF standards and best current practices should be supported= , and when/why that support is needed. As a result of this, millions of devices are being deployed every year, which do not work with important IET= F protocols, standards, and best practices that are central to the future of the Internet.=20 =20 One of the problems in this area appears to be that home gateway vendors ar= e unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are important an= d in what context they matter. Thus, the primary objective of the group is document a baseline of requirements derived from "core" RFCs which must be supported. A secondary objective is to list desired-but-optional, or "advanced", requirements from the same RFCs as well as other, non-core RFCs= . The context and reasoning behind each document which is included should be summarized as well, in order to improve comprehension of why a given document has been included. These things will help improve compatibilities with and capabilities for use of the Internet of today. This will include = a focus in areas such as DNS proxy behavior, congestion mechanisms support, and security.=20 =20 A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use of the Internet of tomorrow. New security needs related to DNS are motivating a move to DNSSEC. However, many if not most home gateways cannot handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that could significantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support for IPv6 is also lacking to a great degree and there is no clear understanding of how such devices should support IPv6. =20 This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may create different requirements in the context of home gateways. If the Working Grou= p believes that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG for further work in existing or new Working Groups. =20 Proposed Deliverables and Priorities: The Working Group would work to improve the network experience that a user of a home gateway gets when using the Internet. This means specifying the requirements from different RFCs should be supported in home gateways. This will touch on standards such as: =B7 IPv6 =B7 DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs =B7 ECN =B7 RED (or other queue management) =B7 DNS Proxy BCPs =B7 Security-Related BCPs =B7 Other TBD =20 The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only support IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only support both IPv4 and IPv6. [JL COMMENT: Is the above sentence overly limiting or constraining? Thus, might there be informational documents we may wish to create or have the option to create?]=20 =20 The group shall prioritize work as follows: 1. IPv4-related topics 2. IPv6-related topics 3. DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.) 4. ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management) 5. Security-related topics =20 Contributors: ISPs and home gateway developers / vendors =20 Who Uses the Work: Home gateway developers / vendors, ISPs =20 =20 [JL1] <#_msoanchor_1> Is this overly limiting? --B_3339595506_4047356 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [homegate] BoF Logistics & Background Based on your feedback, here is an updated charter.  I have one comme= nt embedded inline in the document for the group here.
--JL

= Title: Broadband Home Gateway [HomeGate] BoF
 
Proposed IETF Area: Transport
 
Transport Area Directors:
Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Magnus Westerlund (magnus.westerlu= nd@ericsson.com)
 
BoF Organizers:
Jason Livingood (jason_livingoo= d@cable.comcast.com)
Dave Oran (oran@cisco.com)
 

Proposed Charter:
Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one form= or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or small to med= ium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local network and the Inte= rnet. These technologies almost always involve a single entity - which is no= t purely a router - called a "home gateway".  This entity con= nects a local user or users to various LAN services, providing some basic le= vel of security.  The majority of Internet users employ home gateways f= or this purpose.
 
However, many serious, long-term problems face users of home gateways today= .  At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device manufa= cturers, and/or the organizations that specify requirements for such devices= , are not certain which IETF standards and best current practices should be = supported, and when/why that support is needed.  As a result of this, m= illions of devices are being deployed every year, which do not work with imp= ortant IETF protocols, standards, and best practices that are central to the= future of the Internet.

One of the problems in this area appears to be that home gateway vendor= s are unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are importa= nt and in what context they matter. Thus, the primary objective of the group= is document a baseline of requirements derived from "core" RFCs w= hich must be supported. A secondary objective is to list desired-but-optiona= l, or "advanced", requirements from the same RFCs as well as other= , non-core RFCs.  The context and reasoning behind each document which = is included should be summarized as well, in order to improve comprehension = of why a given document has been included.  These things will help impr= ove compatibilities with and capabilities for use of the Internet of toda= y.  This will include a focus in areas such as DNS proxy behavior, = congestion mechanisms support, and security.
 
A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use of the= Internet of tomorrow.  New security needs related to DNS are mo= tivating a move to DNSSEC.  However, many if not most home gateways can= not handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that could signif= icantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support for IPv6 is also l= acking to a great degree and there is no clear understanding of how such dev= ices should support IPv6.
 
This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may create = different requirements in the context of home gateways. If the Working Group= believes that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IE= SG for further work in existing or new Working Groups.
 
Proposed Deliverables and Priorities:
The Working Group would work to improve the network experience that a user = of a home gateway gets when using the Internet. This means specifying the re= quirements from different RFCs should be supported in home gateways. This wi= ll touch on standards such as:
· &nb= sp;   IPv6

· &nb= sp;   DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs

· &nb= sp;   ECN

· &nb= sp;   RED (or other queue management)

· &nb= sp;   DNS Proxy BCPs

· &nb= sp;   Security-Related BCPs

· &nb= sp;   Other TBD

 The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only supp= ort IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that only suppor= t both IPv4 and IPv6.

[JL COMMENT: Is the above sentence overly limit= ing or constraining?  Thus, might there be informational documents we m= ay wish to create or have the option to create?]  
The group shall prioritize work as follows:
1.    IPv4-related topics

2. =    IPv6-related topics

3. =    DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.)

4. =    ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management)

5. =    Security-related topics
= Contributors: ISPs and home gateway developers / vendors
 
Who Uses the Work: Home gateway developers / vendors, ISPs
 
 

 [JL1] <#_msoanchor_1> Is this overly limiting?

 --B_3339595506_4047356-- From bill@strahm.net Wed Oct 28 21:56:43 2009 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 0A1C33A6863 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:56:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 A6SBm9IprmmI for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strahm.net (069-064-234-065.pdx.net [69.64.234.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36593A676A for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 32347 invoked by uid 514); 28 Oct 2009 08:30:12 -0700 Received: from 192.168.1.1 by homesrv.strahm.net (envelope-from , uid 512) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.86.1/974. spamassassin: 3.0.4. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:0(192.168.1.1):SA:0(-5.7/5.0):. Processed in 0.91992 secs); 28 Oct 2009 15:30:12 -0000 X-Antivirus-Strahm.net-Mail-From: bill@strahm.net via homesrv.strahm.net X-Antivirus-Strahm.net: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:0(192.168.1.1):SA:0(-5.7/5.0):. Processed in 0.91992 secs Process 32339) Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (bill@strahm.net@192.168.1.1) by strahm.net with SMTP; 28 Oct 2009 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4AE86373.2060200@strahm.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:55 -0700 From: Bill Strahm User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurent Toutain References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090805080500070709050605" Cc: Paul Hoffman , homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 29 Oct 2009 04:56:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090805080500070709050605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laurent Toutain wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 18:07, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > > At 4:28 PM +0100 10/26/09, Laurent Toutain wrote: > >I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols > (or at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of > unmanaged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic > should be spread over all available links,... . More ever routers > auto-configuration or multi-homing will be a plus for such > architecture. > > Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because > I am aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN > Ethernet ports. Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone > can say what would be a "best current practice" for such home > gateways, given the extremely small experience we have. > > > Yes, but is the working group will cover the case of two or several > HOMEGATE in a home environment. This is not totally science fiction, a > user may have an ADSL and a WiMAX access and a HOMEGATE router for > each of them ? > > Will HOMEGATE router offer support for routers inside the domestic > network to be auto-configured and routing inside the home network > should take into account some QoS consideration ? > > If an answer to one of these questions is yes, I think routing > protocols should be in the scope of the WG. > > Laurent Please just say no to this extra complexity. Seriously, what percentage of the market do you expect to have multiple WAN connections to the internet, when people switch to WiMAX - they will stop paying their 34.99 to their ADSL provider and start paying it to their WiMAX provider. If we are to start taking on what would normally be considered Enterprise level protocols (do we expect these things to start supporting BGP next?) the specifications will be so complicated that no company will bother to implement them. Step 1: Find a nice 80% of your user base use cases Step 2: Hyper optimize for the majority of the users Step 3: Simplify Simplify Simplify - only do as much as needed for the simple cases - and no more Step 4: Think about advanced features. Bill --------------090805080500070709050605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laurent Toutain wrote:

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 18:07, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
At 4:28 PM +0100 10/26/09, Laurent Toutain wrote:
>I'm wondering why the group will not focus on routing protocols (or at least extensions) for the home environment. On this kind of unmanaged networks, link capacity is rapidly changing, traffic should be spread over all available links,... . More ever routers auto-configuration or multi-homing will be a plus for such architecture.

Few home gateways have more than one WAN link. I say "few" because I am aware that some aimed at the SMB market that have two WAN Ethernet ports. Having said that, it is far from clear that anyone can say what would be a "best current practice" for such home gateways, given the extremely small experience we have.
 
Yes, but is the working group will cover the case of two or several HOMEGATE in a home environment. This is not totally science fiction, a user may have an ADSL and a WiMAX access and a HOMEGATE router for each of them ?

Will HOMEGATE router offer support for routers inside the domestic network to be auto-configured and routing inside the home network should take into account some QoS consideration ?

If an answer to one of these questions is yes, I think routing protocols should be in the scope of the WG.

Laurent
Please just say no to this extra complexity.  Seriously, what percentage of the market do you expect to have multiple WAN connections to the internet, when people switch to WiMAX - they will stop paying their 34.99 to their ADSL provider and start paying it to their WiMAX provider.  If we are to start taking on what would normally be considered Enterprise level protocols (do we expect these things to start supporting BGP next?) the specifications will be so complicated that no company will bother to implement them.

Step 1: Find a nice 80% of your user base use cases
Step 2: Hyper optimize for the majority of the users
Step 3: Simplify Simplify Simplify - only do as much as needed for the simple cases - and no more
Step 4: Think about advanced features.

Bill
--------------090805080500070709050605-- From iljitsch@muada.com Thu Oct 29 02:09:37 2009 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 2DD373A6976; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:09:37 -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 AIFtV+vyzw4P; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C5F3A686D; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claw.it.uc3m.es (claw.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n9T99Blb064742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:09:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes From: Iljitsch van Beijnum In-Reply-To: <4AE86373.2060200@strahm.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:09:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <7B90B3A6-02FC-4F72-ADC6-1DD1A13142CF@muada.com> References: <147a29c80910260828x5a3289c6q53a8e0ea605c2b3f@mail.gmail.com> <147a29c80910280616v525b1af3v75a756c3848fda6b@mail.gmail.com> <4AE86373.2060200@strahm.net> To: Bill Strahm X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) Cc: shim6@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 29 Oct 2009 09:09:37 -0000 [cc to shim6 list, prune as required] Shim6ers: there is currently a discussion on the (fairly) new homegate list about whether multiple home gateways would have to run a routing protocol between them. On 28 okt 2009, at 16:29, Bill Strahm wrote: > Please just say no to this extra complexity. Seriously, what > percentage of the market do you expect to have multiple WAN > connections to the internet Well, this is exactly the deployment scenario for Shim6. For Shim6 to work, the hosts must be able to use different addresses from different ISPs. If you have two IPv6 routers that both announce a different prefix, that can work well. There is no need for the two routers to coordinate. There is the issue of what happens when a packet with a source address from ISP A ends up on the router connected to ISP B, but this issue can be solved by the host paying attention to which router it sends which packets to. Having the routers sort this out would be more complex, I don't think simply running a routing protocol solves this. The only way this becomes a show stopper is if there are the two routers connected to ISPs A and B, and then there is a third router connected to the first two, and hosts sit behind the third one. In this case the hosts can't direct packets to the right router, so the routers would have to sort things out. Bottom line: as long as multiple routers can live on a subnet without getting in each other's way, we have 90% of what we need, so let's go for that now and see what more we can do at some later time. > Step 1: Find a nice 80% of your user base use cases > Step 2: Hyper optimize for the majority of the users > Step 3: Simplify Simplify Simplify - only do as much as needed for > the simple cases - and no more > Step 4: Think about advanced features. It's good to optimize for the most common use cases, but it's also important to not break the remaining 20% for fear of pushing towards a monoculture. See what happened in the web browser space. From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Oct 29 02:16:51 2009 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 03C5228C0F6; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.847, 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 x3EcwHr46myj; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mx4.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFCD3A69FB; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc: Subject:MIME-Version:X-Mailer:Message-ID:From:Date: X-MIMETrack:Content-Type; b=dhX3NhgWwueb/sjnEg7drL/95F5yOAL6gU8hiMlrm5KcDlZTZr9y/uK/ vZlmmapcHlGWlJKPOKK/z3sJA6cZovhWWPI9lwYAzRjSHAcDlOQwewOnI sLkFTtauWI+oMk+; 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=1256807826; x=1288343826; 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.Bellis@nominet.org.uk|Subject:=20Re:=20[home gate]=20Routing=20protocols|Date:=20Thu,=2029=20Oct=20200 9=2009:17:03=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To: =20Jason=20Livingood=20|Cc:=20homegate@ietf.org,=0D=0A=09homegate-bounces@ietf. org,=0D=0A=09Laurent=20Toutain=20,=0D=0A=09Martin=20Focazio=20,=0D=0A=09Paul=20Hoffman=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<6eae86940910 280921q59960e85k28def13de773956b@mail.gmail.com>=20; bh=GRNnZoXfMpcoTaLFeW6f6LZmPSEJajuy759hKQVyFfk=; b=rkk0pbi1W1WEjdk3wfQS8jvjDW0QiWUA+s4XzmsOGbe8YknqYaSlncRN eJ7JEx8qGJy5byJiPs+Pj2AUBTzTfC8ZClcT5l/vGDzQ5iyNE8YYUKDDv RVDwn5gs6GJYDUk; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,645,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="13962270" Received: from notes1.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.128]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2009 09:17:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <6eae86940910280921q59960e85k28def13de773956b@mail.gmail.com> To: Jason Livingood MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 Message-ID: From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:17:03 +0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes1/Nominet(Release 7.0.1FP1 | May 25, 2006) at 29/10/2009 09:17:03 AM, Serialize complete at 29/10/2009 09:17:03 AM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0033000C8025765E_=" Cc: homegate-bounces@ietf.org, Laurent Toutain , homegate@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: [homegate] Routing protocols 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, 29 Oct 2009 09:16:51 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0033000C8025765E_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PiBbSkxdIEl04oCZcyBub3QgdW5yZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBtYXkg YmUgYSBmb2N1cyANCj4gZXZlbnR1YWxseSwgYnV0IEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGlzIGlzIGEgY29ybmVy IGNhc2UgdG9kYXkgKHRoYXQgd2lsbCANCj4gZ3JvdyBvdmVyIHRpbWUgb2YgY291cnNlKS4gIEFz IHN1Y2gsIGl0IHByb2JhYmx5IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIHRvIA0KPiBtYWludGFpbiBhIGZvY3VzIG9u IHNpbmdsZS1ob21lZCBkZXZpY2VzIGZpcnN0IHNpbmNlIHdlIGhhdmUgbXVjaCB0bw0KPiBkbywg YWZmZWN0aW5nIGEgbGFyZ2VyIGN1cnJlbnQgYW5kIHBvdGVudGlhbCB1c2VyIGJhc2UuICBXZSBj YW4gdGhlbg0KPiBnZXQgdG8gbXVsdGktaG9tZWQgZGV2aWNlcyBsYXRlciBvbiwgYWZ0ZXIgY29u c3VsdGluZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBBRHMgDQo+IGZvciBndWlkYW5jZSwgc28gd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGtlZXAg aXQgaW4gbWluZCBhcyB3ZSBwcm9jZWVkLg0KDQorMSB0byB0aGF0Lg0KDQpMZXQncyBnZXQgdGhl IGJhc2ljcyBkb25lIHJpZ2h0LCBmaXJzdCENCg0KUmF5DQoNCg== --=_alternative 0033000C8025765E_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFtKTF0gSXTigJlzIG5vdCB1bnJlYXNvbmFibGUg dG8gY29uc2lkZXIgdGhhdCB0aGlzIG1heSBiZSBhIGZvY3VzIDxicj4NCiZndDsgZXZlbnR1YWxs eSwgYnV0IEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGlzIGlzIGEgY29ybmVyIGNhc2UgdG9kYXkgKHRoYXQgd2lsbCA8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGdyb3cgb3ZlciB0aW1lIG9mIGNvdXJzZSkuICZuYnNwO0FzIHN1Y2gsIGl0IHBy b2JhYmx5IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlDQp0byA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IG1haW50YWluIGEgZm9jdXMgb24gc2lu Z2xlLWhvbWVkIGRldmljZXMgZmlyc3Qgc2luY2Ugd2UgaGF2ZSBtdWNoDQp0bzxicj4NCiZndDsg ZG8sIGFmZmVjdGluZyBhIGxhcmdlciBjdXJyZW50IGFuZCBwb3RlbnRpYWwgdXNlciBiYXNlLiAm bmJzcDtXZSBjYW4NCnRoZW48YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGdldCB0byBtdWx0aS1ob21lZCBkZXZpY2VzIGxh dGVyIG9uLCBhZnRlciBjb25zdWx0aW5nIHdpdGggdGhlIEFEcw0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBmb3IgZ3Vp ZGFuY2UsIHNvIHdlIHNob3VsZCBrZWVwIGl0IGluIG1pbmQgYXMgd2UgcHJvY2VlZC48YnI+DQo8 L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPisxIHRvIHRoYXQuPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+ DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj5MZXQncyBnZXQgdGhlIGJhc2ljcyBkb25lIHJp Z2h0LCBmaXJzdCE8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPlJheTwv Zm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPg0K --=_alternative 0033000C8025765E_=--