HOMEGATE BOF - Meeting Minutes
============
9 November 2009
IETF 76

Chairs: Dave Oran, Jason Livingood

Scribe: Eric Burger

List: homegate@ietf.org

IETF 76 Meeting Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/76/materials.html

Discussion
---------
Reviewed Background (Dave Oran)

Home Gateways and DNS (Ray Bellis): Saw there were lots of
implementation bugs; some only implemented first DNS RFC 1035 spec.

IPv6 Issues (John Brzozowski): Work closely with v6ops folks; not
duplicating work.

Do we keep the work in v6ops or take it over here? Do we take results
of v6ops work and refine for homegate context?

Congestion Management Considerations (Rich Woundy): need to figure out
how to tell gateways how to deal with congestion

Security Issues (Paul Hoffman): some things need to be published and
worked on; need to figure out how to coordinate that work (most likely
in other work groups) with this work.

OPEN QUESTIONS FROM MAIL LIST
-----------------------------
Are people here that can make a difference? Yes: manufacturers, users,
service providers.

Many problems come from manufacturers that do not care: small, cheap,
and inexperienced. Our work will not influence them. It is important
to reach folks writing RFPs and doing conformance testing.

Can we just advise people as to how to use IETF protocols? Forums,
like Broadband Forum, are doing requirements. However, there is a need
for guidelines.

Scope: more than a NAT, but not an integrated, does every home server,
gateway.

Lots of this work has been done in BEHAVE.

IETF for dummies? E.g., here are the things you missed.

Are we here to describe architecture of entire home gateway model?
Probably not.

One proposal: define what a homegate is. Set clear boundaries.

GOALS
-----
How do we define the scope of what is a home gateway? Could be big and
capable or small and constrained.

Next step: finish charter work.

Scope
-----
No new protocol development

Produce one or more BCPs targeted to developers and people who write
specifications used by homegate developers

Is IPv6 in scope? Should IPv4 and IPv6 be described in separate
documents? HUM: keep together

Should we deal with data-plane issues? Even split; no consensus yet.

Should we point to other documents or craft a system specification,
like RFC 1812? <Skipping>

BOF Questions
=============
Is problem statement clear / solvable? Slight leaning to clarify
problem statement.

Who will help the chairs finish the charter? Enough to finish charter.

Who is willing to write/edit documents? Very, very few, but some.

Who supports a WG with charter scope as described? <Skipped>

Who thinks a WG should NOT be formed? Very, very, very few, but some
hums.