On Jun 13, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: >> Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked >> to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shouldn't take long for you to >> type. Please? > > The working group would presumably like for there to be routing on the > homenet. What problems is the routing supposed to solve? What things are > priorities? What things aren't priorities? > > Clearly we need the routing solution to get packets to the right egress based > on source address. Do we also need it to do load sharing across parallel > links, if such links exist? Is it important to minimize the number of hops? > How long of a delay can there be between changes to the topology (e.g., a > router being unplugged) and recovery, assuming that a flow was going through > that router? Is it okay to break a flow in that situation, or does it need > to survive the transition? Does the routing protocol need to be aware of > the type of media a given link crosses, and does it need to prefer one media > type over another where both are available? > > I'm basically making questions up here. The document should say what the > working group wants routing to accomplish. Right now it's a bit of a > kitchen sink, with a lot of (IMHO) inappropriately prescriptive text.
Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You are falling into your own trap of going beyond that. Yes, the document could be improved. In fact, after another year of coding and protocol development, I bet we could write a descriptive architecture document of what actually came out on the other side that is even better than we could today! The discussion here has actually been pretty good at tearing apart some of the things NOT to say, it's also made me think more about whether the IESG should keep stats on how much text it removes during a review rather than adds (I'll be asking Jari to include that in his doc stats, and I bet he'll find time to do it - the guy is amazing like that). Do we really want to crack open this document again? I really don't trust how the process has been working of late to believe that it would not lead to another round of DISCUSSes and Last Calls. - Mark > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
