> I've actually been wondering about this, too. I would dearly like to avoid having this discussion today. I was under the impression that we had agreed on today's deadline for the -02 version of the routing protocol comparison, and so had assumed that only editorial changes and discussion of existing text should happen right now. I would have welcomed this discussion a week earlier.
> I am not sure about the history here, At the beginning of the discussion, I summarised my thoughts in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chroboczek-configuration-separate-00 The rest of the discussion caused my opinions to evolve somewhat, so please take this document with a reasonable amount of salt: - security was off the radar at the time; - Section 4 is no longer relevant (and even contains some incorrect claims). I was chastised for publishing an opinion draft without consulting the chairs (and perhaps rightly so), so I never got around to writing up a -01. > it might be possible to use that already-existing routing protocol as > the underlying communication mechanism for HNCP [...] I don't know if > that would work with a non-link-state routing protocol, It would be pretty trivial to implement reliable or unreliable flooding over the Babel packet format. I will not be doing that, however, not even as a proof of concept, since I think that a routing protocol should avoid doing anything that's not directly related to routing. > HNCP contained its own (underspecified) link-state routing protocol Markus and Steven should chime in, but my opinion is that this part of the protocol should go. Perfection, as somebody once said, is achieved when there is nothing left to remove, not when there is nothing left to add. > I think Markus' comments on security are also very important to consider > here, as some sort of integrated security mechanism between the routing > protocol and HNCP might be strongly desired. I'm largely incompetent to comment on that. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
