Pierre Pfister <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Markus and Steven on most points, but let me clarify a few > aspects.
> - First, I think this is really cool if another area wants to use
> hncp. So I don’t see any reason we couldn’t adapt the documents to
> allow it. We should be careful *not* to make homenet specifications too
> complex thought. Having too many abstraction layers may not be
> desirable.
Copy and paste is an acceptable way to develop specifications.
The IETF owns the text, if someone wants to use it, let them write a
document. If the documents can be converged later on, great.
> hncp-transport, and another for hncp-homenet. I’m a bit more concerned
> about removing trickle algorithm behavior. We can abstract the TLV
If you remove trickle, then you might as go back to OSPFv3.
> - Homenet-hncp intends to be incremental in terms of TLVs. Other TLVs
> will come, and, if hncp is widely used in homes, vendor-specific
> options will come as well. So I think ‘ignore TLVs you don’t know’ is
> the correct behavior. Nevertheless, I understand hncp could be used
We actually need a "critical" bit on the Type value then.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-
pgp7eJvHM66sD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
