Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-homenet-arch

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:24 -0500

Folks,

I didn't notice 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-arch/ on the IESG 
agenda until just now. I think it's important enough for me to review 
that I've employed the seldomly-used IESG hammer of "The Defer", 
delaying consideration until the 26-September telechat. I would very 
much appreciate an AppsDir review of this document as well. Could 
someone be assigned quickly and get the review in time for the telechat?

Thanks,

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:00:04 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Pete Resnick wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I didn't notice https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-arch/ on 
> the IESG agenda until just now. I think it's important enough for me to 
> review that I've employed the seldomly-used IESG hammer of "The Defer", 
> delaying consideration until the 26-September telechat. I would very much 
> appreciate an AppsDir review of this document as well. Could someone be 
> assigned quickly and get the review in time for the telechat?

yes!

as for the others, any volunter before "my european evening" ? otherwise 
I'll go to the list!

thanks again!

> _______________________________________________
> appsdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:25:39 +0100

An informal review, I just happened to find it interesting. Nothing leaps
out at me suggesting it shouldn't be published.

§1 para 5: Apparently home networks are what they are. I admit to being
easily baffled, but I cannot understand how they might not be what they
are. Perhaps:

"We assume that the IPv4 network architecture currently deployed in home
networks can not be modified by new recommendations."

In general, §1 uses a lot of the terms of art from §1.1, which I found
quite hard to deal with - perhaps some of the paragraphs of §1 could be
moved below §1.1, either as a §1.2 or something else.

§1.1

"CER" I understand as "the router"; that is, it's the pre-existing
DSL/Cable router that's in the majority of home networks now, right? The
term used elsewhere in the document is "modern home router", which seems
obvious enough, but isn't present in the definition.

I've read through the rest of the document, it looks good to me (though
some parts I've only skimmed).

§4 seems less of a conclusion and more of a summary; I'm not really sure
what it's there for. What I was hoping to find here was a bullet point list
of new work needed. Instead, potential new work items are scattered
throughout the text, making them hard to locate and enumerate.

Dave.

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:48:25 +0200 (CEST)

> out at me suggesting it shouldn't be published.

I guess we can easily publish it...

I asked SM to do the formal review, but he can include also your comments 
in the formal review itself, if yoiu both agree (I've nothing against it).

thanks Dave!