Subject: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:59:22 +0000

Dear all,

As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG chair position after IETF-112 and I now have ‘mission impossible n++’ to find a new WG chair to assist Stephen Farrel.

As Stephen is an experimented WG chair, having a ‘junior’ co-chair would be welcome (of course ‘senior’ as well!), i.e., even if you are new at the IETF and if you have never been a WG chair, then feel free to reply unicast[1] to me: we can then have a chat about the job and the motivation. The job itself is not a big chunk of time outside the IETF weeks but requires human skills (herding cats !) and of course good technical knowledge.

Looking forward to reading your email about you or about any suggestion

Regards

-éric

[1] unicast is preferred but not required

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 01:36:55 +0100

Hiya,

On 24/08/2021 08:59, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> As you are probably aware, Barbara Stark is retiring from her WG
> chair position after IETF-112 

I'd also like to thank Barbara for all her fine work for this
WG, and everything else in IETF-land too!

> and I now have ‘mission impossible n++’
> to find a new WG chair to assist Stephen Farrel.
> 
> As Stephen is an experimented WG chair, having a ‘junior’ co-chair
> would be welcome (of course ‘senior’ as well!), i.e., even if you are
> new at the IETF and if you have never been a WG chair, then feel free
> to reply unicast[1] to me: we can then have a chat about the job and
> the motivation. The job itself is not a big chunk of time outside the
> IETF weeks but requires human skills (herding cats !) and of course
> good technical knowledge.
> 

So, (having checked with Eric and Barbara) I'd also like
to know whether (or not) participants consider that the
homenet WG may now have reached the time when it's more
appropriate to close the WG. That might (or might not)
make a search for a new co-chair moot.

If closing the WG were the better option then we'd want
to have a discussion about how to handle ongoing work
(e.g. see if there's a better venue), but that's a
separate discussion.

Cheers,
S.

PS: FWIW, I'd be just as happy if there's consensus to
continue or to call it a day - either is a fine outcome
if it matches reality.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 14:42:48 +0200

I think it's pretty clear that there's more work to do; the question is
whether the homenet working group has a quorum to do it. A fair amount of
the work we were trying to do in homenet has wound up happening in dnssd
instead, which seems fine—there was a pretty clear overlap there.

There is still work to do that I think is homenet-relevant, but only if
there are people in homenet who want to do it. I haven't had time to
progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing dnssd
work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to progress that draft
/somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for dnssd. It could go in
v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with intarea.

But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set out to do.
It's just a building block that might lead there. The original work of
homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market, and I think it's
because we didn't have an adoption strategy. Personally I think stub
networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy that could ultimately
produce an adoptable version of what we originally tried to do. But again,
only if people here want to pursue that.

On August 24, 2021 at 8:37:24 PM, Stephen Farrell ([email-masked])
wrote:

Hiya,

Cheers,
S.

> [1] unicast is preferred but not required
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 14:38:27 -0400

> only if people here want to pursue that.

I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document.
I agree that it's an important document.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 07:05:04 -0400

Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing
    >> dnssd work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to progress
    >> that draft /somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for dnssd. It
    >> could go in v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with
    >> intarea.

    >> But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set out to
    >> do.  It's just a building block that might lead there. The original
    >> work of homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market, and I
    >> think it's because we didn't have an adoption strategy. Personally I
    >> think stub networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy that
    >> could ultimately produce an adoptable version of what we originally
    >> tried to do. But again, only if people here want to pursue that.

    > I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document.  I
    > agree that it's an important document.

If we need to keep HOMENET open to do stub networks, then let's do that.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 18:24:26 +0200

FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do.
We now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting
it up will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented. And we
might be getting close to ready to talk about how to integrate the dnssd
naming work into a HomeNet.

On August 27, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM, Michael Richardson ([email-masked])
wrote:

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 02:11:02 +0200

> FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do. We
> now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting it up
> will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented.

That would be RFC 9080.  It's fully implemented in both hnetd and shncpd.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:53:50 -0400

I also support that homenet work being made in homenet. It is unclear to me
why we are looking at an alternate way to proceed.
Yours,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:21:57 +0100

Hiya,

> why we are looking at an alternate way to proceed.

 From my POV, mostly because, as co-chair, it's very hard
to be confident that we have sufficient participation to
usefully claim WG consensus for the (good) work being done
when we put that forward for e.g. IETF LC.

As a WG, we're suffering from lack of input and at some
point (and now being a good point) we should consider whether
or not the WG is still tractable or not.

Cheers,
S.

PS: As it's still just about vacation season, I figure
it makes sense to let this discussion go on for another
week or two, so if someone hasn't yet chimed in, it's
still a fine time to do that!