I think we could come closer to this by forming a Babel-specific WG that is chartered to take the current Babel documents as a starting point and only change them by consensus of the WG to meet IETF standards-track requirements and fix any technical holes, than we will if we form a more generic WG. if we start a generic DVRP WG, then we are likely to have multiple candidate specs, and people will be looking to combine specs by compromising and merging the features of different specifications into a single document, so that there will be one document with enough followers to gain consensus. I suspect that what emerges from that sort of process might not be recognizably Babel.
Margaret On Apr 2, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
