On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Absolutely. > 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. > More to the point, that sort of process will likely result in nothing emerging at all. There are two discussions happening at the moment. One is what routing protocol should be chosen for homenet, and the proposed deadline for concluding that discussion is "before Prague". The other is around standardizing babel. That can proceed in parallel. We should not block either discussion on considering yet more routing protocols.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
