On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > This sounds _way_ too specific to me. Like a lot of the document by now. > Specifying routing protocol path cost function in _architecture_ document? > Ha ha.
If you are just going to laugh, then I'm not going to approve the document, and you should definitely ask nomcom to replace me if you feel that is the right thing to do. I would prefer that we have a discussion about what the text should say, but that's entirely up to you. What I would like to see as feedback is a clear statement of what the routing paradigm is, not agreement that the text as currently written is correct. This statement should be inclusive of whatever routing protocols the working group is inclined to consider, but it should be selective enough that it says what the working group actually wants, and doesn't cover all possible routing protocols. I very much do not want the working group to fight out the routing protocol question right now, but I think it's possible to get this text to a point where it satisfies the DISCUSS it was supposed to satisfy. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
