On 09/07/2015 02:10, Steven Barth wrote: > > > Am 07.07.2015 um 23:24 schrieb Brian E Carpenter: >> Your explanation is fine but the phrase "and can therefore be used in >> fully autonomic as well as professionally managed networks" still makes >> some big assumptions. How about "and can therefore be used more >> widely than in unmanaged home networks"? > > I would disagree here, the statement "autonomic" or "fully autonomic" is > perfectly > fitting for the kind of networks this algorithms can be used in. It can > certainly > also be used in professionally managed networks or do you see any reason why > it > cannot?
The current text implies (to me) that it's necessary and sufficient, which is definitely not the case and was never discussed in the WG anyway. The change most recently suggested by Pierre is OK for me. Rgds Brian > > This said, it does not necessarily mean that it is a perfect fit for all > kinds of > these networks, but nobody did claim that either. It is extensible though so > there > is no way to discard it for these usecases that easily. > > > Cheers, > > Steven > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
