I'm curious as to why Michael's comments garnered only a single reply—I think he raised some good points. I've been reviewing the architecture document, and it's a hard read. I think it's actually pretty good in principle, and I know that part of the reason it's so heavy is because the authors are trying to represent a plurality of opinions, including my own.
But in a lot of cases I think it would improve the document to pare it fairly heavily—to try to tease out the essence of what everyone wants, and then leave out the details of how they propose to get it. The architecture should be what we want, not how we propose to get it. We don't all agree on how to get it, and perhaps those questions should be addressed separately. I can offer more detailed comments, but it would be a pretty big message, which nobody would feel enthusiastic about reading. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
