Thanks Daniel. And you’re not too late. The call ends this coming Friday. So if anyone else wants to chime in, please do. I’ll try to create a summary Thursday describing what I think I’ve heard so far. That should give everyone a brief chance to tell me how badly I’ve misinterpreted their statements before the call ends. Barbara
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Migault Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:37 PM To: Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" Hi, 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 received. 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. Yours, Daniel On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca<mailto:m...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com<mailto: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<mailto:m...@sandelman.ca> http://www.sandelman.ca/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sandelman.ca_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=uqhdpfAOITKstE9n1m2cqWQBfUB6RU0LRDtqMC8ibzQ&s=8qZL6PGc43SeZeVi0APewz7FaTVpftHNpf-yOcYDyOo&e=> | ruby on rails [ _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org<mailto:homenet@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_homenet&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=uqhdpfAOITKstE9n1m2cqWQBfUB6RU0LRDtqMC8ibzQ&s=P1CT3rBX-JnN_kcMQWjstGGI6aHAXbwwU_-eTyjKR1A&e=>
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
