I think for an arch document, we should talk generally about how a routing protocol could plug into the rest of the system, but stop short of details within the routing protocol itself. If routing experts are concerned the working group is going to go into bad territory with cost metrics, path calculation, etc. toying around with text here isn't the way to go about solving that. This is not a WG charter document, it's not even normative.
Bottom line: I would much rather have routing experts on list rather than writing our documents for us one discuss at a time. - Mark (Thumbtyped) > On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> I provided my feedback. Care to enlighten us why your stance is that we _do_ >> need insanely verbose specification of routing paradigm? > > Both of the routing ADs complained about the text in this section. I do not > actually clearly understand their complaints, but after discussing it with > Alia (who did not raise a DISCUSS, but was happy to talk with me about it) > and with Adrian (who really feels quite discouraged about the whole > conversation), the understanding I came away with was that they felt that the > document as written was quite open-ended and left available the possibility > of doing some things that are Not A Good Idea. > > As a routing non-expert, I have no way to evaluate this. I don't know what > the working group wants, and I don't know why the routing ADs are concerned > about it. So when I have a routing AD spend months trying to get the text > right, and then get upset when it's changed and move to abstain on the > document, my only recourse is to either put my fingers in my ears and hum a > tune whilst pretending not to hear, or to ask the working group for help. > > I have a lot of respect for the routing ADs, and don't want to just ignore > them, so I chose the latter. There's a lot of knowledge about routing in > the working group, and my hope is that in watching you discuss this question, > I can come to a better understanding of what to do. I realize this is a > pain in the neck, and I apologize for it--I wish I had a better understanding > of the issues so that I could just propose a solution. > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
