> As I said in the meeting, my concern is not because of the process
> requirements - but because of the experience and improvements found during
> the standardization and interoperability process.
This makes sense, and I'm quite open to discussing that in Prague.
However, I'd like to attract your attention on one set of data:
- OSPFv2 is 244 pages, OSPFv3 adds 92 pages;
- OLSRv2 is 144+60+14 = 218 pages (including dependencies);
- RPL is 157 pages, and it's badly underspecified (grep for
"implementation" and try not to cry).
On the other hand
- Babel 45+10 = 55 pages (including the extension mechanism).
The current version of Babel is version 2. It has been much simplified
since versions 0 and 1 -- there's almost nothing left to remove from this
protocol. With one minor exception, all of the mechanisms in RFC 6126 are
used by the implementation, and are necessary for correctness.
In the light of the above figures -- can I trust an IETF working group to
understand that a huge amount of effort has been put into removing
mechanisms from this protocol, and to respect that work?
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
