Tim Chown <tim.ch...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
    > See Stuart’s deck from Prague for context:

    >> and then there is draft-ietf-mid-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative 
    >> Will homenet will to adopt that too?
    >> So it seems that I have to read the other documents in detail before I 
    >> make any clear opinion as to how this all fits together.
    >> (I think I've missed the last two homenet WG meetings due to conflicts; I
    >> should watch them on meetecho recording to learn more I guess)

    > It turned out that only 4 people had time to read them for Prague.

    > The interesting twist is the pushback on multicast for future specs.

    > I agree it’s early for an adoption call, likewise for the draft-sctl-*
    > drafts in dnssd.

Actually, if the relevant draft-sctl-* drafts were clearly about to adopted
by dnssd, then I would have no problem with the timing of the adoption call.
(I don't know: I'm truly ignorant here.  I can't read every ML and attend
every WG session, sadly)

The document does not, as Juliuz says, define a protocol, but it does provide
a clear profile on how to use other work.  I'm also fond of adopting a
document as soon as it looks like the table of contents is sane :-)

But, the question as to:

     > and then there is draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support as a normative 

concerns me most.  Unless it's in RFC-editor queue (it's not, it's expired!),
I'm pretty sure it's a very much normative reference.  So Homenet needs an
answer as to how to deal with this dependancy.  It seems that we'd need to
adopt it, copy and paste the text into this document, or reboot MIF...

Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

homenet mailing list

Reply via email to