Catching up on this thread (message times are based on NZST, UTC+12): On 13/06/2014 00:45, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> This sounds _way_ too specific to me. I agree. Discussion of adding metrics together, although it seems like Routing 101, just seems out of place. On 13/06/2014 01:59, Ted Lemon wrote: > 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. That would be a very valid criticism of WG charter goals. I am not at all convinced that it's a valid criticism of an Informational architecture document. On 13/06/2014 02:34, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > The Arch document MUST NOT specify what kind of data the metric > computation algorithm is allowed to take as input. and, I think gave authoritative reasons for that assertion. Basically, we shouldn't squeeze these very complex arguments into a general document. On 13/06/2014 02:55, Acee Lindem wrote: > I was involved in this discussion and the statement was merely an attempt > to capture the fact that the existing unicast IGP routing protocols would > meet the homenet requirements with the addition of routing based on > source-address. That's a very fair statement, but that isn't at all what the new paragraph says. On 13/06/2014 03:27, Ted Lemon wrote: > "Existing routing protocols" covers a lot of protocols that I think > we clearly don't want to use. Yes, but that's very different from defining a rigid approach to metrics. On 13/06/2014 09:20, Ray Hunter wrote: > Apart from the use of the word "graph" which could be overloaded > or suggest a preference for link state protocols. Why? It's the term of art for both Bellman-Ford and Dijkstra algorithms. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
