Hello Ted: Seems that there's more work than what we can expect from a DT. Otherwise we'd be all set by now.
What about forming a flash WG in routing area to see if: - we can extract requirements for home - there's such a thing as a one size fits all homes routing protocol - provide recommendations on how to use (a combination of) existing standards, and, if that can not be done,whether a new protocol is needed ROLL followed that path. Take care, Pascal > Le 26 juil. 2015 à 17:10, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> On Jul 26, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> And what makes you think I do not understand the context? >> I attended last Homenet WG in Dallas and then joined the list. So I've been >> reading the list for 3 months and catching up on all documents. > > Then you probably remember just how unhelpful and un-illuminating the > discussion at the microphone was in Dallas. This working group has been > discussing the routing protocol problem for several years, and at this point > there seems to be very little constructive discussion going on, so it is > unfortunately not surprising that despite having participated for the last > three months, you do not know why the working group can’t reach consensus to > just use IS-IS. > > Based on the experience with the DT, it’s clear that some of the points that > are made in the homenet architecture document were not sufficiently clear. > However, all of these points have been discussed by the working group over > the past four years, and the lack of clarity in the document is not the > result of a lack of clarity on the part of the working group; indeed, > probably just the opposite. > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
