In message <[email protected]> Christian Hopps writes: > > > On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used > >> (with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were > >> used as the homenet protocol. > > > > I see that you've been speaking with Abrahamsson. Please let me give you > > some background. > > It's not just Mikael that has this opinion, he's just the more active > email participant. > > >> If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in the document? > > > > I seem to recall that I already mentioned that I find your tendency to > > bring out controversial arguments just before a deadline somewhat > > offputting. > > There was nothing nefarious here. I just thought of a question and > raised it. I think we should be open to doing that any time free > of attack. > > Thanks, > Chris.
I agree with Chris. WGs are allowed to change their decisions particularly in early stages when there is no significant ***deployment***. Even then WGs can take a new direction but need to include backward compatibility or at least have a solid plan for (hopefully painless) transition. For example, MPLS started with RSVP-TE and CRLDP and years later dropped CRLDP due to lack of deployment. CIDR obsoleted EGP, BGP1-3, RIP1, and lots of other protocols, but there was a good reason and a clear transition plan. The way IETF has normally done things is to allow multiple developments to exist if they have support and then drop only those that are not being deployed or prove to be less desirable. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
