I would like to reiterate my opposition to four requirements of this draft (as described in my mail of 18 July):
- the requirement for a new ND option; - the requirement for a RESTful management API; - the requirement for a local DNS resolver on each link; - the requirement for a ULA. Speaking as the author of one of only two implementations of HNCP, I would like to be very clear that I shall not implement a RESTful management API, and I shall not implement a local DNS resolver. I will also not make it compulsory to deploy a ULA, although I'm willing to make it the default behaviour. (I have no objection to implementing the ND option, assuming that somebody else gets it deployed in host implementations.) I believe that it would be premature to adopt this draft now, at least until people have had a chance to consider the consequences for implementations. The best way IMO would be to have a prototype implementation, which I will be glad to review. I shall not make too much of a fuss should the WG decide to adopt this draft notwithstanding my objections. However, I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when we eventually run into trouble. -- Juliusz P.S. Our mail server is down until Thursday, please reply to the list. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
