-----Original Message----- From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM To: Ericsson <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc
>> I was involved in this discussion > >I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, Acee. Comments, debate, and discussion are a normal part of the IETF process. > >> the statement was merely an attempt to capture the fact that the >> existing unicast IGP routing protocols would meet the homenet >> requirements [...] while BGP would not be precluded, BGP's rich routing >> policy is not viewed as being required in the homenet. > >Was it meant to preclude or discourage the following: > > * route selection involving hysteresis; > * radio interference avoidance; > * cross-layer metric computation techniques? > >If it wasn't, then somebody didn't do their homework. If it was, then >somebody needs to drop by on this list to explain their position to us. As I stated above, it was not meant to preclude additional capabilities and I agree with the chairs that the document is fine without it. Thanks, Acee > >-- Juliusz > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
