On 02/10/2014 09:27, Steven Barth wrote: > >> Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced >> in its work. > Still some of the essential underlying problems are the same and I think > you should not discard the progress in this working group all too > quickly. Instead adopting concepts and ideas from homenet could very > much benefit ANIMA. The underlying problems of "state synchronization" > or "negotiation" are the same. Sure we've already built something on top > of that but why not look at the foundation. > > >> Not really. The details are all to be discussed of course, but >> the concept is fundamental to autonomics: devices talk to each >> other rather than receiving instructions from above. (As Rene >> Struik has pointed out, there is another way to look at it, >> state synchronization, but that's largely a difference of >> terminology.) > Well I think your statement is a bit premature here. Yes, a negotiation > protocol is certainly necessary. > However even superficially comparing > draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol with draft-ietf-homenet-hncp > shows that the problem can be tackled by completely different approaches > and it would surprise me if these were the only ways to do it. Plus I > can't really tell from a first quick look at it which of these > approaches is more generic than the other. Perhaps we should try to > compare both and see what could be improved in either variant or maybe > find another variant which combines the best of both worlds?
I quite agree. We will be updating the config-negotiation-protocol draft but I think there is a lot to learn from HNCP. I hope the words in the charter don't imply otherwise. Brian > > > Cheers, > > Steven > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
