> On 22.7.2015, at 19.19, David Lamparter <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fully agree with Brian, Juliusz and the various others - there needs to > be a mandatory routing protocol, but there's no need at all for HNCP > need to reference the actual protocol. The HNCP *protocol* works fine > whatever routing protocol is chosen. The router as a whole doesn't. It > simply means that implementing this single HNCP draft is not enough to > get a full homenet router. But: > -- there is *no* claim that the HNCP draft *alone* gets you a full > homenet router! -- > There simply needs to be another document that completes the picture. > But there is no point in holding up HNCP for that document.
Agreed. I think we will remove routing protocol references from HNCP just to be clear, as in practise what we really interact with is the local route set and not the routing protocol itself anyway. I guess it was easier to write the way it is, but as it causes confusion, rather fix it and drop the RP dependency except for the border discovery result triggering running / not running of 'a suitable routing protocol' somewhere. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
