My request was more dogfooding. a *lot* more dogfooding. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30.6.2015 15.41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Ray Bellis wrote: >> If I understand correctly, work is now ongoing to create a separate >> implementation of HNCP? This would be a good step to address my concern >> I have voiced privately to the authors that not enough people have gone >> through the document. I also find them hard to read (some parts have >> been changed after I gave this feedback) and it uses terminology that >> might benefit from further explanation and/or making examples what they >> mean. For instance, the section about "common link" (section 4). Upon >> reading this, I think I understand that this applies to for instance a >> shared ethernet segment where both can see each others HNCP packets. >> Having an example here about why things are done, what problems are >> solved etc, would probably make it easier to understand rationale for >> the choices. >> >> 6.2.4 "create an on-link route"? What's an on-link route? Also, why is >> it a "MAY" that it doesn't create an address for itself to this prefix? >> An explanation and rationale here would be good. >> >> 6.2.6 The list of things to do there isn't clear to me. "wait for them >> to be applied"? Applied where? How? Using the HCNP Prefix Assignment >> Algorithm? In the RIB? It implies HNCP Prefix Assignment Algo >> afterwards, but this isn't clear to me. >> >> Section 11 about the MUST for RFC7084 compliance. What parts of RFC7084 >> must be implemented? MUSTs? SHOULDs? > > > First of all, thanks for the feedback on the content (again). > >> I personally think this WGLC is premature. I will not oppose it going >> forward, but I have concerns that the document(s) isn't ready for >> shipping off as RFCs yet due to not enough people having read them. >> >> So I think I am basically saying that the documents are probably >> correct, but there is still very valuable information still only in the >> heads of the implementors that has not been written down in the >> document, that would be valuable to have in there and that would also >> help future implementors who might be reading the document trying to >> understand what's going on, why things are done the way they are, etc. > > > IETF tradition is that without WGLC or other implemenation efforts, there is > not much action either. HNCP document is already soon 1.5 years old and the > number of reviews is not _that_ great outside the main implementation crew. > > Hopefully Juliusz will give us feedback on his results ASAP, and obviously > any other reviews are welcome. > > Cheers, > > -Markus > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
-- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
