I apology for the late response (I was off for two weeks). I will update
the draft by the end of the month integrating numerous feed backs we

As a co-author I am supporting the adoption of this document architecture.
I believe that given the current situation regarding homenet and naming,
the simple but useful scope of the draft will help the WG to move forward
regarding naming and home network. I agree the document is not yet in a
final version and feed back from the WG will be very helpful. That said I
think, since last IETF, we have a pretty good view on where we are going.


On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca>

> Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
>     > to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been some good
>     > comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' point that
> it
>     > would
>     > be nice to actually try some of this in practice is good, and is what
>     > I'm
> We require interoperable implementations for Internet Standard, not to
> adopt
> a document.  Implementation reports would be good for WGLC, not here!
> We need to lower the bar here, not raise it.  WGs can abandon documents
> too.
>     > That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been
> spinning
>     > our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the
> scope
>     > of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take
>     > on. If it's not,
>     > then I don't actually know how to proceed.
> I think that it's the right approach, and given the sort out of the MVDP,
> I support adoption.
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
> architect  [
> ]     m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
homenet mailing list

Reply via email to