From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 11:04 AM To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Dave Taht <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ray Bellis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Terry Manderson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET
-- 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. WG] Also worth noting that those of us suggesting that Babel move from experimental/individual to IETF consensus standard are not suggesting this because we believe that the design is flawed and needs IETF to fix it. Rather, we're suggesting that it's good to have additional scrutiny and consensus behind your design choices on a mandatory-to-implement protocol that will live on devices that are notorious for not getting consistent software updates. I view a WG that makes changes to an existing protocol for the sake of changes or to "mark their territory" as doing it wrong, and I think most WG chairs are good at making sure that changes are justified. You’ve obviously spent a lot of time thinking about your design choices and refining the design. As to the question of the WG respecting that work, that's unlikely to happen on assertion alone. If the rationale isn't in the RFC, you should be prepared to have those choices questioned by well-meaning folks in the IETF, but it shouldn't be hard to defend them if they are indeed the best choice for the goals of the protocol, especially with the weight of running code behind them. Just don't take those sorts of questions personally, or this will be a lot less pleasant for everyone. Thanks, Wes George Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it. ----------- ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
