On 20/09/2013 07:43, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:36 PM, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Possibly Tim got that from your comments—I didn't. I should probably let
> Tim respond rather than continuing to muddy the waters.
Reading this thread, I perceive big differences in understandings
of the scope of the document (and of the WG).
IMHO the document (and the WG) are about making the networking layer
(layer 3), and routing, work consistently in zero-management home
networks. That inevitably spills over into DNS.
The document (and the WG) are not about making the application
eco-system work consistently. That is completely absent from the WG
charter; after all, it's an Internet Area WG.
I believe the draft meets the charter goals. It's certainly a snapshot,
and should be labelled as such, but it isn't intended to stray much
outside layer 3, and shouldn't.
Whether work is need in the application eco-system for home networks
is a separate discussion.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
