On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> 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.
>
I think Ralph offered an initial set of requirements for Naming and Service
Discovery. Do you have additional requirements to add, or think that any
of Ralph's points are out of scope? IOW, what's the consensus opinion on
the "problem we are trying to solve"?
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
