On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > May I assume that you and other interested parties have read
> > draft-chroboczek-ahcp-00?
>
> I found the description of the architecture frustratingly brief, and I
> have not read the document in detail because of that.
>
> > What I fear is that if I present AHCP, people will think that I'm
> > pushing AHCP in its current form rather than as a basis for future
> > work, and positions will cristallise prematurely.
>
> I think that's a reasonable fear, but you don't have to present AHCP—you
> can just present an architecture. The difference between this and the
> current architecture document would be that yours would be really specific.
> This sort of thing is a really useful exercise, because when you try to
> clearly express what it is that you think should be done, you are forced to
> think through the details, and suddenly things that weren't fleshed out in
> previous versions of the protocol become clear.
>
> I've never seen an IETF working group shy about "improving" a protocol
being worked on in that group; rather the reverse, particularly if
shortcomings of an existing protocol are pointed out.
Generally, it's designs done *without* existence proofs that go wrong, go
wrong, go wrong...
- Jim
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
