From lars.eggert@nokia.com Wed Jun 2 08:35:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B483A693F for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.671, BAYES_50=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 MdEZ4v4pBRM1 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7543A69FB for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o52FYJtJ014420 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:34:48 +0300 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:34:40 +0300 Received: from mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.48]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:34:39 +0300 Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o52FYaYQ005281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:34:38 +0300 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.1 at fit.nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-51-832926760; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Lars Eggert In-Reply-To: <0278F321-9CF7-4F07-AF11-1ADAE82ECFB9@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:34:30 +0300 Message-Id: References: <0278F321-9CF7-4F07-AF11-1ADAE82ECFB9@nokia.com> To: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:34:30 +0300 (EEST) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2010 15:34:39.0964 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D7B69C0:01CB0269] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: nat-study@fit.nokia.com Subject: Re: [homegate] wanted: your old/spare NAT home router X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: nat-study@fit.nokia.com List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:35:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail-51-832926760 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, FYI, a first report with test results for 34 devices is available = athttp://fit.nokia.com/lars/tmp/2010-hgw-study.pdf. Slides that = summarize the results are at = http://fit.nokia.com/lars/tmp/2010-hgw-study-slides.pdf. We have received another 30-odd devices as donations, which we'll add to = the testbed and include in a follow-up study. If you have an unused, spare home gateway to donate to this effort, = please contact us at nat-study@fit.nokia.com. We're also interested in = obtaining a DSLAM and a CMTS. Thanks, Lars On 2010-5-7, at 17:43, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, >=20 > for a measurement study done together with Markku Kojo's team at the = University of Helsinki, we're looking to collect as many different NAT = home routers as possible. If you have an old clunker or otherwise unused = box lying around somewhere, please contact me off-list. I'll cover = shipping via DHL. Feel free to forward this email as you see fit. >=20 > The boxes will find a permanent home at the University of Helsinki. = Study results will be published openly. The intent is that this = collection become a resource for the community to be shared for future = studies.=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Lars --Apple-Mail-51-832926760 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 MQ8XDTEwMDYwMjE1MzQzMFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGPPHoiLq9D1f+8lXVV8D6zyYCdGMIGF BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxeDB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGlu ZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBD QQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUw IwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVy c29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQB2OTfqxcpudWfXlLT+pSnTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AASCAQAwrYHTVEC5mkzLgTJd3LKpluFGjWrZdtJ5EvTpVMZp6sfOqbsZYY89Y1haGwQ01tcCo+ZG PO24545LoCTsPhsJad0XxuznPwJ68EiYeD4Z//sv3AwMKadcI51xDROZrjvZJVycSZBw6m/r7iWd YXuQ9y4d3ZL9Ymi23sK4XWwEVKP9j8u+b7hf3sw5WXhhV/lniJ0yE/xRVVf9W0q+JIlpkIoxpUWo NVe3KudMvoQ7FqTx7no8Lfwek8bG1p4I7KpZ27kI6ZcpGQnAYDWSQpJ5uaaoBSJPIpuUFHzPLaPt QEpBk5kPQESvU4Ba7FRxdRXPzPcGbBu3jLMYN2DVgiVcAAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-51-832926760-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Jun 28 16:42:27 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2901A3A69D8 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.33 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.998, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 Ixi7zW1TUYqj for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7335E3A687D for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([147.191.124.14]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.2732326; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:46:05 -0600 Received: from PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com (10.52.116.31) by COPDCEXHUB03.cable.comcast.com (147.191.124.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.694.0; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:42:29 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:28 -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, 28 Jun 2010 23:42:27 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.25.0.100505 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:42:27 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Homegate Virtual Workshop: 13 July Thread-Index: AcsXG5C8+joFT74exEK2mtzJGmQsHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3360598947_7555418" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2010 23:42:28.0474 (UTC) FILETIME=[919D1DA0:01CB171B] Subject: [homegate] Homegate Virtual Workshop: 13 July 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, 28 Jun 2010 23:42:27 -0000 --B_3360598947_7555418 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable After a lot of debate, we=B9ve finalized the date of the Homegate virtual meeting as Tuesday, July 13, 2010. Logistics for the virtual meeting (URL and dial in) to follow. The draft agenda is below. Please provide any feedback on recommended changes to thi= s agenda ASAP. Such as: add or delete topics, reduce the length of given sections, etc. Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Times listed are **UTC** (so adjust to your local time zone - http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc) Duration: 6 Hours (with 2 breaks) Start Time: 1:00pm (13:00) UTC End Time: 7:00pm UTC UTC TOPIC 1300 - 1315 Agenda bashing 1315 =AD 1330 Overview of IETF=B9s thinking in this space 1330 - 1345 Use cases: ISP-purchased + Subscriber-purchased devices 1345 - 1405 View from HGI - Duncan Bees 1405 - 1425 View from UPnP Forum - Mark Baugher 1425 - 1445 View from DLNA Stephen Palm 1445 - 1455 Break 1 1455 - 1505 View from BBF - Heather Kirksey / Barbara Stark / Ole Tran 1505 - 1525 View from Cablelabs/eRouter - Jean-Francois Mule 1525 - 1645 View from IEEE 802.1 AVB - Michael Johas Teener 1645 - 1700 Break 2 1700 - 1715 View from device vendor 1: Apple 1715 - 1730 View from device vendor 2: Cisco 1730 - 1745 View from device vendor 3: NetGear 1745 - 1845 Discussion of IETF focus, how to proceed 1845 - 1900 Wrap-up / Next Steps Thank you Jason --B_3360598947_7555418 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Homegate Virtual Workshop: 13 July After a lot of debate, we’ve finalized the date of the Homegate virt= ual meeting as Tuesday, July 13, 2010.  

Logistics for the virtual meeting (URL and dial in) to follow.  The dr= aft agenda is below.  Please provide any feedback on recommended change= s to this agenda ASAP.  Such as: add or delete topics, reduce the lengt= h of given sections, etc.

Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Times listed are **UTC** (so adjust to y= our local time zone - http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc)
Duration: 6 Hours (with 2 breaks)
Start Time: 1:00pm (13:00) UTC
End Time: 7:00pm UTC

UTC             = ;     TOPIC
1300 - 1315     Agenda bashing
1315 – 1330     Overview of IETF’s thinking= in this space
1330 - 1345     Use cases: ISP-purchased + Subscriber-p= urchased devices
1345 - 1405     View from HGI - Duncan Bees
1405 - 1425     View from UPnP Forum - Mark Baugher 1425 - 1445     View from DLNA Stephen Palm
1445 - 1455     Break 1
1455 - 1505     View from BBF - Heather Kirksey / Barba= ra Stark  / Ole Tran
1505 - 1525     View from Cablelabs/eRouter - Jean-Fran= cois Mule
1525 - 1645     View from IEEE 802.1 AVB - Michael Joha= s Teener
1645 - 1700     Break 2
1700 - 1715     View from device vendor 1: Apple
1715 - 1730     View from device vendor 2: Cisco
1730 - 1745     View from device vendor 3: NetGear
1745 - 1845     Discussion of IETF focus, how to procee= d
1845 - 1900     Wrap-up / Next Steps

Thank you
Jason
 --B_3360598947_7555418-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Mon Jun 28 16:43:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628B53A6A0D for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.33 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.999, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 iGSje+uNkuiA for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF963A69C9 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([147.191.124.13]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.2732381; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:47:28 -0600 Received: from PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com (10.52.116.31) by copdcexhub02.cable.comcast.com (147.191.124.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.694.0; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:43:52 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:43:51 -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, 28 Jun 2010 23:43:51 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.25.0.100505 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:43:51 -0400 From: Jason Livingood To: "homegate@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 Thread-Index: AcrxCb9N2qdlmTFwjkWT7tcaQu80uQPxnm3dAAFBa/sFkaEITA== In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3360599031_7547788" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2010 23:43:51.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[C35D2B50:01CB171B] Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 28 Jun 2010 23:43:49 -0000 --B_3360599031_7547788 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There=B9s been no feedback so far on the draft BoF agenda. I=B9ll have to assume if we receive no feedback that everyone either (a) thinks it looks fine or (b) isn=B9t paying attention. ;-) Jason On 5/31/10 11:23 AM, "Jason Livingood" wrote: > As noted in my previous email, here is a summary of the BoF request we ha= ve > sent for IETF 78. >=20 > 1 - Expected Attendance: 75 People > 2 - Number of sessions: 1 > 3 - Length of sessions: 1 Hour > 4 =AD Agenda: > (Assume start of BoF is 0:00 for simplicity) > 0:00 =AD 0:05 Blue Sheets, Agenda Bashing > 0:05 =AD 0:10 Review of Goals of BoF > 0:10 =AD 0:30 Review of Charter > 0:30 =AD 0:45 Discussion of Concerns from Other SDOs / Potential Overla= p > 0:45 =AD 1:00 Final Discussion of Charter & How/Whether to Proceed with > Homegate >=20 > Regards > Jason >=20 --B_3360599031_7547788 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 There’s been no feedback so far on the draft BoF agenda.  IR= 17;ll have to assume if we receive no feedback that everyone either (a) thin= ks it looks fine or (b) isn’t paying attention.  ;-)

Jason


On 5/31/10 11:23 AM, "Jason Livingood" <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>As noted in my previous email, here is a summary= of the BoF request we have sent for IETF 78.

1 - Expected Attendance: 75 People
2 - Number of sessions: 1
3 - Length of sessions: 1 Hour
4 – Agenda:
(Assume start of BoF is 0:00 for simplicity)
0:00 – 0:05     Blue Sheets, Agenda Bashing
0:05 – 0:10     Review of Goals of BoF
0:10 – 0:30     Review of Charter
0:30 – 0:45     Discussion of Concerns from Other= SDOs / Potential Overlap
0:45 – 1:00     Final Discussion of Charter &= How/Whether to Proceed with Homegate

Regards
Jason

--B_3360599031_7547788-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Jun 28 17:31:20 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8BE3A6A0B for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 LLKhgHVE579j for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174BA3A69FE for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5T0MTw5023405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:22:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:22:26 -0700 To: Jason Livingood From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: homegate@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 00:31:20 -0000 At 7:43 PM -0400 6/28/10, Jason Livingood wrote: >There's been no feedback so far on the draft BoF agenda. I'll have to assume if we receive no feedback that everyone either (a) thinks it looks fine or (b) isn't paying attention. ;-) I'll take (a). And we have 1 hr 15 mins, so we have 15 minutes more than you scheduled. I propose that you stretch out the review of the charter instead of more about "concerns from other SDOs", give that the telecon a few weeks earlier will cover the latter topic. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From palm@broadcom.com Mon Jun 28 17:37:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1BF3A68D4 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=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 o4boPHOWjPyc for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA663A68C6 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:46 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: D3C04415-6FA8-4F2C-93C1-920E106A2031 Received: from mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (10.11.16.101) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:39:07 -0700 Received: from [10.9.253.28] (dhcp-10-9-253-28.broadcom.com [10.9.253.28]) by mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6903E69CA8; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:37:44 -0700 From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jason Livingood" References: In-Reply-To: X-WSS-ID: 60379FD010013376232-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 00:37:50 -0000 Jason Livingood wrote: > There=92s been no feedback so far on the draft BoF agenda. I=92ll have= to=20 > assume if we receive no feedback that everyone either (a) thinks it=20 > looks fine or (b) isn=92t paying attention. ;-) >=20 > Jason >=20 >=20 > On 5/31/10 11:23 AM, "Jason Livingood"=20 > wrote: >=20 > As noted in my previous email, here is a summary of the BoF request= > we have sent for IETF 78. >=20 > 1 - Expected Attendance: *75 People* > 2 - Number of sessions: *1 > *3 - Length of sessions: *1 Hour > *4 =96 Agenda: > *(Assume start of BoF is 0:00 for simplicity) has the date and time been set? > 0:00 =96 0:05 Blue Sheets, Agenda Bashing > 0:05 =96 0:10 Review of Goals of BoF What document will be used for this agenda item? > 0:10 =96 0:30 Review of Charter What document will be used for this agenda item? > 0:30 =96 0:45 Discussion of Concerns from Other SDOs / Potentia= l > Overlap Will the concerns be documented? Perhaps a more "postiive" approach would be to list some other related SDOs and indicate how Homegate would differentiate itself from said SDOs to prevent overlap. regards, kiwin --=20 Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: palm@kiwin.com Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256 Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu palm@broadcom.com s.palm@ieee.org palm@itu.ch spalm@cs.cmu.edu palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp From palm@broadcom.com Mon Jun 28 17:40:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E3F3A68D7 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:40:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, 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 BNPAKLu5+fHl for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MMS3.broadcom.com (mms3.broadcom.com [216.31.210.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87033A68C6 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.9.200.133] by MMS3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:39:55 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: B55A25B1-5D7D-41F8-BC53-C57E7AD3C201 Received: from mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (10.11.16.101) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:41:16 -0700 Received: from [10.9.253.28] (dhcp-10-9-253-28.broadcom.com [10.9.253.28]) by mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82A769CA8; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C2940DA.1010105@broadcom.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:39:54 -0700 From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jason Livingood" References: In-Reply-To: X-WSS-ID: 60379F513KC19432794-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Homegate Virtual Workshop: 13 July 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, 29 Jun 2010 00:40:14 -0000 Does AVB really need 1 hour and 20 minutes when others are receiving 20 o= r 15 minutes? Jason Livingood wrote: > After a lot of debate, we=92ve finalized the date of the Homegate virtu= al=20 > meeting as Tuesday, July 13, 2010. =20 >=20 > Logistics for the virtual meeting (URL and dial in) to follow. The=20 > draft agenda is below. Please provide any feedback on recommended=20 > changes to this agenda ASAP. Such as: add or delete topics, reduce the= =20 > length of given sections, etc. >=20 > *Date*: Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Times listed are **UTC** (so adjust to=20 > your local time zone - http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc= ) > *Duration*: 6 Hours (with 2 breaks) > *Start Time*: 1:00pm (13:00) UTC > *End Time*: 7:00pm UTC >=20 > UTC TOPIC > 1300 - 1315 Agenda bashing > 1315 =96 1330 Overview of IETF=92s thinking in this space > 1330 - 1345 Use cases: ISP-purchased + Subscriber-purchased devices= > 1345 - 1405 View from HGI - Duncan Bees > 1405 - 1425 View from UPnP Forum - Mark Baugher > 1425 - 1445 View from DLNA Stephen Palm > 1445 - 1455 Break 1 > 1455 - 1505 View from BBF - Heather Kirksey / Barbara Stark / Ole = Tran > 1505 - 1525 View from Cablelabs/eRouter - Jean-Francois Mule > 1525 - 1645 View from IEEE 802.1 AVB - Michael Johas Teener > 1645 - 1700 Break 2 > 1700 - 1715 View from device vendor 1: Apple > 1715 - 1730 View from device vendor 2: Cisco > 1730 - 1745 View from device vendor 3: NetGear > 1745 - 1845 Discussion of IETF focus, how to proceed > 1845 - 1900 Wrap-up / Next Steps >=20 > Thank you > Jason >=20 --=20 Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: palm@kiwin.com Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256 Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu palm@broadcom.com s.palm@ieee.org palm@itu.ch spalm@cs.cmu.edu palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Jun 28 17:51:33 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059B03A680C for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:51:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 J7sCZnVRGFxF for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A443A67D3 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5T0paM0024647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:51:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> References: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:50:30 -0700 To: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" , "Jason Livingood" From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 00:51:33 -0000 At 5:37 PM -0700 6/28/10, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote: >has the date and time been set? The current IETF agenda () has HOMEGATE Wednesday morning at 9AM; Maastricht is GMT+2. >> 0:00 - 0:05 Blue Sheets, Agenda Bashing >> 0:05 - 0:10 Review of Goals of BoF > >What document will be used for this agenda item? Good question, and one that should be answered ahead of the BoF. >> 0:10 - 0:30 Review of Charter > >What document will be used for this agenda item? >> 0:30 - 0:45 Discussion of Concerns from Other SDOs / Potential >> Overlap > >Will the concerns be documented? It would be grand if someone on the telecon would send a summary of those to the mailing list well before the BoF. >Perhaps a more "postiive" approach would be to list some >other related SDOs and indicate how Homegate would differentiate >itself from said SDOs to prevent overlap. That's one approach, but not a typical one in the IETF. My preference would be more discussion of the charter than other SDOs. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From palm@broadcom.com Mon Jun 28 19:02:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4103A688A for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, 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 l3WhEP8+uGg8 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF053A672E for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:19 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: from mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (10.11.16.101) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:03:40 -0700 Received: from [10.9.253.28] (dhcp-10-9-253-28.broadcom.com [10.9.253.28]) by mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404A869CAA; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C295429.3050104@broadcom.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:17 -0700 From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Paul Hoffman" References: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: X-WSS-ID: 60378BA137O2868898-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 02:02:23 -0000 Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Perhaps a more "postiive" approach would be to list some >> other related SDOs and indicate how Homegate would differentiate >> itself from said SDOs to prevent overlap. > > That's one approach, but not a typical one in the IETF. My preference would be more discussion of the charter than other SDOs. As I have seen nothing proposed that isn't already being addressed in other SDOs, it would be a prudent step in this case. This information need not be in the charter itself, but would help craft a focused charter (if possible) and could provide justification for the obvious questions that folks will ask. regards, kiwin -- Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: palm@kiwin.com Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256 Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu palm@broadcom.com s.palm@ieee.org palm@itu.ch spalm@cs.cmu.edu palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp From jari.arkko@piuha.net Tue Jun 29 02:51:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1B13A6783 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:51:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.076, 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 DPlWyk941pdk for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A973A635F for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707042CED3; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:52:00 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1LlQIxtKY0m; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:52:00 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31C32CC62; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:51:59 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C29C23F.7070306@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:51:59 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" References: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 09:51:51 -0000 Stephen, > Perhaps a more "postiive" approach would be to list some > other related SDOs and indicate how Homegate would differentiate > itself from said SDOs to prevent overlap. I agree. Hopefully the virtual meeting will give us the necessary information on what other SDOs are doing (I know I know too little of that). Then in the BOF we can we have a discussion on how the proposed IETF activity would fit into the map. Jari From jari.arkko@piuha.net Tue Jun 29 03:07:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885643A68B9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.643 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.956, 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 WJm9RTXiO+nS for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921533A67D9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD792CED3; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:07:38 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PhBOhViazphA; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:07:37 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98FC2CC62; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:07:37 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C29C5E9.2040302@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:07:37 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 10:07:29 -0000 Paul , > That's one approach, but not a typical one in the IETF. My preference would be more discussion of the charter than other SDOs. > I like to think of this more as an issue of existing work vs. proposed work question. That is the heart of any charter discussion. What specifications and ongoing efforts already exist, and what exactly are we proposing on top of them? Jari From jari.arkko@piuha.net Tue Jun 29 03:09:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFE53A67D9 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:09:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457] 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 BV54DCt4pmUI for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F91F3A67B8 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB0D2CED3; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:09:55 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c2y6+hpA-1Yp; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:09:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300FD2CC62; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:09:54 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C29C671.3060807@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:09:53 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Livingood References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 29 Jun 2010 10:09:49 -0000 Jason Livingood kirjoitti:
Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 There’s been no feedback so far on the draft BoF agenda.  I’ll have to assume if we receive no feedback that everyone either (a) thinks it looks fine or (b) isn’t paying attention.  ;-)

I think the agenda looks fine at a high level, assuming we take Stephen's comment about the overlap section into account.

But the crux is of course in the details. What specific issues get presented and discussed, for instance. Does someone have a good document or a slide set that explains who is doing what in this space, for instance?

Jari

 From jari.arkko@piuha.net Tue Jun 29 04:36:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE5C3A6ABE for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.610, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 PZDl4O+VTD4A for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E1D3A63CB for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835C22CED3; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:36:08 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sUFnErrNjwch; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:36:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D10A2CC62; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:36:06 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4C29DAA6.8000509@piuha.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:36:06 +0300 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "homegate@ietf.org" , Jason Livingood References: <4C29C671.3060807@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <4C29C671.3060807@piuha.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090608060802070400040101" Subject: [homegate] charter comments 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, 29 Jun 2010 11:36:03 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090608060802070400040101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have read the charter on the wiki page at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE and have some comments. I think it is basically in the right direction, but needs more "beef", particularly around description of the current problems, and needs to be more specific. I have some suggested changes below.

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.


Rewriting to make the first sentence simpler and to remove the feeling that the gateway's main purpose is to provide security:

Broadband Internet service to homes and small offices typically employ a "home gateway" device. This device acts as the demarcation line between the local network and the service provider's network. Typical implementations employ routing and/or address translation functionality, and may involve additional capabilities for firewalling, wireless networking, and local services.

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 not 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 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 vendors are unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are important and 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.


I'm not super enthusiastic about this problem description. How about this:

The basic functionality of home gateways is simple, works well, and is in daily use by hundreds of millions of people. However, there are also problems. These problems appear particularly with traffic types outside the most common ones, new and upcoming Internet functionality, and under extreme conditions. These problems include but are not limited to:

* Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on interactive traffic.

* Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for instance when employ TCP transport or with EDNS0. The problem is that while these complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming more common due various reasons.

* Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree, more importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults?

* While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically works well in the gateways, they do not always support the current timeout recommendations or additional transport protocols.

The basic hypothesis of this working group is that a well organized collection of requirements for support of various features would make it more likely that future home gateway devices behave better in these situations. This collection of requirements would form a single document to document the baseline 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. In most cases there are existing RFCs that already contain the necessary requirements, such as RFC 4294, RFC 4787, RFC 5508, RFC 5382, RFC 5625, or RFC-to-be-draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements. In some other cases new requirements have to be developed.

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.


Good, but given my suggested edit above I would shorten this to:

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.

This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may create different requirements in the context of home gateways.


I would say:

This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes recommendations on supported features and protocols in the context of home gateways.

If the Working Group believes that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG for further work in existing or new Working Groups.


OK

Add: The working group works together with other standards bodies (such as the Broadband Forum) that define requirements on home gateways. The role of the working group is to focus on the recommendations related to the use of IETF-specified technology such as DNS, NATs, or IPv6 and not overlap with system-level or link layer technology related specifications from these other standards bodies.

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:
* IPv6
* DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs
* ECN
* RED (or other queue management)
* DNS Proxy BCPs
* Security-Related BCPs
* 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.

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


Too handwavy and may be too detailed given that the preceding paragraphs should have already defined the problems.

How about this:

The working group works to improve the networking experience for the user of home gateways. The group has the following work items:

1. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for IPv4-only home gateways (BCP)
2. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack home gateways (BCP)
3. Requirements document for additional, optional functionality in home gateways (BCP)

Please find suggested full edit and diffs as attachments.

Jari

--------------090608060802070400040101 Content-Type: text/plain; name="charter-jari.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="charter-jari.txt" Broadband Internet service to homes and small offices typically employ a "home gateway" device. This device acts as the demarcation line between the local network and the service provider's network. Typical implementations employ routing and/or address translation functionality, and may involve additional capabilities for firewalling, wireless networking, and local services. The basic functionality of home gateways is simple, works well, and is in daily use by hundreds of millions of people. However, there are also problems. These problems appear particularly with traffic types outside the most common ones, new and upcoming Internet functionality, and under extreme conditions. These problems include but are not limited to: * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times on interactive traffic. * Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for instance when employ TCP transport or with EDNS0. The problem is that while these complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming more common due various reasons. * Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree, more importantly, there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and with what defaults? * While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically works well in the gateways, they do not always support the current timeout recommendations or additional transport protocols. The basic hypothesis of this working group is that a well organized collection of requirements for support of various features would make it more likely that future home gateway devices behave better in these situations. This collection of requirements would form a single document to document the baseline 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. In most cases there are existing RFCs that already contain the necessary requirements, such as RFC 4294, RFC 4787, RFC 5508, RFC 5382, RFC 5625, or RFC-to-be-draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements. In some other cases new requirements have to be developed. 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. This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes recommendations on supported features and protocols in the context of home gateways. If the Working Group believes that new protocols are needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG for further work in existing or new Working Groups. The working group works together with other standards bodies (such as the Broadband Forum) that define requirements on home gateways. The role of the working group is to focus on the recommendations related to the use of IETF-specified technology such as DNS, NATs, or IPv6 and not overlap with system-level or link layer technology related specifications from these other standards bodies. The working group works to improve the networking experience for the user of home gateways. The group has the following work items: 1. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for IPv4-only home gateways (BCP) 2. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for dual-stack home gateways (BCP) 3. Requirements document for additional, optional functionality in home gateways (BCP) --------------090608060802070400040101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="charter-jari-from-original.diff.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="charter-jari-from-original.diff.html" Diff: charter-original.txt - charter-jari.txt
 charter-original.txt   charter-jari.txt 
Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one Broadband Internet service to homes and small offices typically employ
form or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or a "home gateway" device. This device acts as the demarcation line
small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local between the local network and the service provider's network. Typical
network and the Internet. These technologies almost always involve a implementations employ routing and/or address translation
single entity - which is not purely a router - called a "home functionality, and may involve additional capabilities for
gateway". This entity connects a local user or users to various LAN firewalling, wireless networking, and local services.
services, providing some basic level of security. The majority of
Internet users employ home gateways for this purpose.
However, many serious, long-term problems face users of home gateways The basic functionality of home gateways is simple, works well, and is
today. At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device in daily use by hundreds of millions of people. However, there are
manufacturers, and/or the organizations that specify requirements for also problems. These problems appear particularly with traffic types
such devices, are not certain which IETF standards and best current outside the most common ones, new and upcoming Internet functionality,
practices should be supported, and when/why that support is needed. As and under extreme conditions. These problems include but are not
a result of this, millions of devices are being deployed every year, limited to:
which do not work with important 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 * Many gateways employ simple queuing algorithms in their forwarding
vendors are unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they logic. These algorithms are simple to implement, but behave badly
are important and in what context they matter. Thus, the primary under load conditions that occur commonly in home networks with, for
objective of the group is document a baseline of requirements derived instance, P2P or IPTV traffic. This can lead to poor response times
from "core" RFCs which must be supported. A secondary objective is to on interactive traffic.
list desired-but-optional, or "advanced", requirements from the same
RFCs as well as other, non-core RFCs. The context and reasoning behind * Many gateways offer DNS proxying or perform firewalling that affects
each document which is included should be summarized as well, in order DNS traffic. However, while basic DNS functionality works with these
to improve comprehension of why a given document has been designs they often fail with more complex DNS transactions, for
included. These things will help improve compatibilities with and instance when employ TCP transport or with EDNS0. The problem is
capabilities for use of the Internet of today. This will include a that while these complex cases are uncommon today, they are becoming
focus in areas such as DNS proxy behavior, congestion mechanisms more common due various reasons.
support, and security.
* Support for IPv6 is lacking to a great degree, more importantly,
there is no clear understanding of what IPv6 features would be
necessary on a home gateway beyond those specified in RFC 4294. For
instance, what firewalling functionality should be employed, and
with what defaults?
* While basic NAT functionality on outgoing TCP sessions typically
works well in the gateways, they do not always support the current
timeout recommendations or additional transport protocols.
The basic hypothesis of this working group is that a well organized
collection of requirements for support of various features would make
it more likely that future home gateway devices behave better in these
situations. This collection of requirements would form a single
document to document the baseline 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. In
most cases there are existing RFCs that already contain the necessary
requirements, such as RFC 4294, RFC 4787, RFC 5508, RFC 5382, RFC
5625, or RFC-to-be-draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements. In some
other cases new requirements have to be developed.
A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use
of the Internet of tomorrow. New security needs related to DNS are of the Internet of tomorrow. New security needs related to DNS are
motivating a move to DNSSEC. However, many if not most home gateways motivating a move to DNSSEC. However, many if not most home gateways
cannot handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that cannot handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that
could significantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support could significantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally.
for IPv6 is also lacking to a great degree and there is no clear
understanding of how such devices should support IPv6.
This working group will not develop new Internet protocols, but may This working group will not develop new protocols, but makes
create different requirements in the context of home gateways. If the recommendations on supported features and protocols in the context of
Working Group believes that new protocols are needed, it will refer home gateways. If the Working Group believes that new protocols are
the problem to the IESG for further work in existing or new Working needed, it will refer the problem to the IESG for further work in
Groups. existing or new Working Groups.
Proposed Deliverables and Priorities:The Working Group would work to The working group works together with other standards bodies (such as
improve the network experience that a user of a home gateway gets when the Broadband Forum) that define requirements on home gateways. The
using the Internet. This means specifying the requirements from role of the working group is to focus on the recommendations related
different RFCs should be supported in home gateways. This will touch to the use of IETF-specified technology such as DNS, NATs, or IPv6 and
on standards such as: not overlap with system-level or link layer technology related
specifications from these other standards bodies.
* IPv6 The working group works to improve the networking experience for the
* DNSSEC RFCs and BCPs user of home gateways. The group has the following work items:
* ECN
* RED (or other queue management)
* DNS Proxy BCPs
* Security-Related BCPs
* Other TBD
The group will create a BCP-level document for home gateways that only 1. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for
support IPv4, and a second BCP-level document for home gateways that IPv4-only home gateways (BCP)
only support both IPv4 and IPv6.
The group shall prioritize work as follows: 2. Requirements document for basic, mandatory functionality for
dual-stack home gateways (BCP)
1. IPv4-related topics 3. Requirements document for additional, optional functionality in
2. IPv6-related topics home gateways (BCP)
3. DNS-related topics (DNSSEC, DNS Proxies, etc.)
4. ECN-related topics (congestion and queue management)
5. Security-related topics
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
53 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/
--------------090608060802070400040101-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Jun 30 12:32:20 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093813A6910 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:32:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 8v7mamVLHS7l for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A80B3A68F3 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5UJWREL087463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:32:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4C29C5E9.2040302@piuha.net> References: <4C294058.3060304@broadcom.com> <4C29C5E9.2040302@piuha.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:32:26 -0700 To: Jari Arkko From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homegate] Draft BoF Agenda @ IETF 78 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, 30 Jun 2010 19:32:20 -0000 At 1:07 PM +0300 6/29/10, Jari Arkko wrote: >>That's one approach, but not a typical one in the IETF. My preference would be more discussion of the charter than other SDOs. >> > >I like to think of this more as an issue of existing work vs. proposed work question. That is the heart of any charter discussion. What specifications and ongoing efforts already exist, and what exactly are we proposing on top of them? It seems that other SDOs are creating profiles of what a gateway should support, and those profiles often include a list of IETF protocols and BCPs. If the IETF wants to make a standards track consensus-based profile of our own, I do not think the fact that other SDOs are working on their own affects us. If all we are going to do is an Informational RFC that is a profile, there is not much reason to have a WG at all. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium