Markus, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > Different link technologies do not need to lead to different routing protocols. Different types of interfaces can have very different logic. > 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. > PLEASE reread the proposed design team charter. It articulates the process that would be followed in this homenet design team. Nowhere does it even vaguely imply that the team would make a slam dunk answer based on a superficial examination of implementations, standardization, and deployment. We have spent quite some time figuring out the proper charter for the design team to handle and articulate concerns. Regards, Alia > Cheers, > > -Markus
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
