Hi Markus, On 27/03/2015 4:27 am, "Markus Stenberg" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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. While that is an interesting walk back from and existing WG consensus, the topic du jour is about the WG acceptance of the design team to come to an answer. > >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. The design team will not be limited to the Babel v ISIS competition. The design team will certainly be directed to first seek out a requirements position (much of which already exists in RFC7368), and I don't see the existence of a WG to be a technical requirement. Further the design team will not be constructed of routing folk alone. Cheers Terry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
