> On 26.3.2015, at 13.20, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > That is certainly not omitted, why do you think it would be? > ..Specifically when we look at outputs from the routing area (and Alia can > certainly speak for her own Area on this) two reference implementations > are generally required. That same ideal was highlighted in the workgroup > meeting. So that ethos is very much included. > > Are there any other comments in either the positive or negative direction? > Please WG, speak up.
I have my doubts that this will converge anywhere useful. Why are we trying to force exactly 1 routing protocol at any rate? It was all based on one hum in London(?) year ago, and it seems more and more like a bad idea given e.g. potential for diverse set of link technologies in future homes. Also, if routing guys essentially make the decision, I would definitely love to hear what is _the best_ option, not just Babel <> IS-IS choice from them knowing there is ISIS WG in RTG area, but not Babel one. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
