Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 11:28 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> If someone's argument for why not to adopt HNCP is "it's too hard," then >> they are discounting the technical debt that they accumulate when they do >> a one-off ad hoc protocol. > > That's very well put, and exactly what I'm trying to explain to the > community. Please help me do that rather than adding to the perception > that HNCP contains dozens of random, arbitrary requirements.
That's what I thought I was doing by writing that message! I am not sure it's helpful for me to pop up on the olsr mailing list and start talking about this, and I also don't really have time, but I will see what I can do. >> There is a reason why the IETF seems slow. > > You're changing the subject, Ted. Nobody mentioned timeliness. That's how I read what you said. I don't think it matters--whether it's timeliness or complexity, there are definitely costs to writing standards for everybody to follow. > I'm arguing against making strong requirements that will be ignored by any > sensible implementer. "Hey, you don't need to deploy that, but you still > MUST carry the dead code in your implementation". Right, but I am disputing your claim that they don't need to deploy that. Deploying it may be a regrettably manual process at the moment, but I think it is very much needed. > How much more silly can one get? I suspect that collectively we can get very silly indeed, should we choose to seriously put this question to the test, but perhaps that's more of a thing for a bar bof than a working group... ;) -- Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mel...@fugue.com
pgpPofihiBuuk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
