Juliusz, On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek < [email protected]> wrote:
> > 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). > Perhaps you are familiar with the old joke "I'm sorry this is so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter." ? > 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? Yes, I think that the requirement for minimal mechanisms and a simple easy to implement and troubleshoot protocol can be clearly expressed. How well the WG handles this depends in part on the WG chairs and how strongly the participants are reminded of that requirement and how stringently the need for truly active consensus is focused on. Regards, Alia > -- Juliusz >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
