On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually Ray, IETF process, as described by the IESG, happily allows for > Downref with suitable approval and notice to the community. So, as far as I > can tell, homenet could indeed reference and mandate Babel in a Proposed > Standard RFC. I would agree that homenet choosing to do that would be a > strong impetus for moving the document to Standards track. But that does not > have to be gating. > > https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
This is true, however that downref would have to get IETF consensus, which could be a sticking point if there are a lot of people in the routing area who believe that Babel is problematic for some reason. This isn't particularly an issue as far as the design team goes because I think we can take it as a given that the design team is going to consider Babel as one of the options, and if Babel is selected then I get the impression that there will be reasonably strong motivation in the routing area to bring it up to proposed standard. But the real problem here is that the working group needs to pick a routing protocol that's mandatory to implement, so that the Homenet routers that eventually get shipped can route between each other. That's the point of the design team. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
