According to the zeroconf charter, home networking and SOHO environments were a primary target of the zeroconf work. I don't think the zeroconf and homenet scenarios are as divergent as you indicate, but I agree on letting things play out a bit more to determine the problem(s) we're trying to solve.
R. On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Randy Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just seems like the IETF has tried to address one of our requirements (zero >> configuration) in the past -- if the IETF has already published proposed >> standards for zero configuration, why wouldn't we look at this first? Or at >> least "cherry pick" what we like from this effort. > > > I think it would be better to decide what problem we are trying to solve, and > then think about how we'd like to solve it, and then see if there are > solutions available that we can leverage to solve the problem, rather than > predisposing any decision-making process towards choosing the output of the > zeroconf working group. Certainly it would be irresponsible to entirely > fail to consider zeroconf work, but the problems it set out to solve, and the > way it solved them, are not particularly applicable to the homenet scenario. > If you use zeroconf work as a starting point, you probably won't get to a > very satisfying destination. >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
