Hi Ted,
At 05:55 19-09-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think that you are interpreting this document
to be something that it is not, and cannot yet
be. What this document is is an architecture
for the homenet working group—a crib sheet that
tells us what we are trying to accomplish. I
don't think it's intended to be something that a
random person who is not implementing home
gateways would find useful. The working group
is hoping that subsequent versions of this
document will evolve over time, and I think it
would be good for the working group to evolve
the document into something that meets the goals that you've set out above.
The problem may be that the document uses the
word "architecture". The sense I got after
reviewing the document was that it was more of a
requirements document instead of one about
architecture. I may not be implementing home
gateways but I would still read the document to
understand what assumptions I can make for my
IPv6 application. This entails understanding how
what the working group is trying to accomplish
affects my area of interest. If I look at the
document as one about requirements I'll conclude
that there isn't anything that has an impact on application technologies.
I agree that it would be good for the working
group to evolve the document (see my previous
comments about stabilizing the document and
having a discussion about unresolved issues). It
might have been missed in my comments; what I am
saying is that the working group already has the
text it needs to get the work done; what's left
is some rearrangement and tightening of the text to get a crisp document.
However, I think that if the working group
attempts to do that now, two things will
happen. First, the working group won't actually
get to the work it's supposed to be doing,
because completing the architecture document
will continue to be an all-consuming
effort. Second, the document that is produced
will be purely theoretical, not based on actual practice, and probably useless.
Agreed.
That's why I emphasized the it "just works" in my
previous comment. I would leave it to the
working group to make the trade-offs so that the
document is about something that will actually
work in practice. I would assess the effort so
that it does not turn into an all-consuming one.
So I would like you to consider whether you can
accept this restatement of the purpose of the
document. Do you feel that this document
cannot be of use until it meets the goals you've
set out above, or does the different purpose
I've expressed here make sense to you? If the
latter, can you reconsider your review in light
of this new stated purpose for the
document? Is part of the problem that the
goals of the document are poorly expressed in
the document? Given the goals I've stated, do
all of your comments still apply, or would you
have responded differently to the document if
you'd been evaluating it on the basis I'm proposing?
I think that the document can be of use to the
working group. The document may not be that
clear to people from outside the area. I guess
that the problem may be, as mentioned above, the
goals of the document. If the document is a
(Informational) crib sheet I would rate it as good enough.
It's unfair of me to submit such a review at this
late stage. I have not taken into consideration
the amount of effort involved in getting the
draft this far. I'll defer to the document shepherd (or you).
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
