Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it was discussed in the meeting. You're allowed to be one of the people who's in favor of it, despite being chair. Indeed, as chair, you can just adopt it by fiat if you want. I actually agree with Ray and Michael that Juliusz reasoning was flawed, and am definitely in favor of adopting it and working on it. I also agree with Andrew that it shouldn't be the final word on naming in the homenet.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an > opinion want to express a new and different opinion? > > Barbara > > I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind. > > On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable and limited set of > things to do to get started with, and so I'd normally say we should > adopt it and go ahead. > > On the other hand, as I suggested in Prague, it's quite a limited set > of aspirations, and quite a bit short of what we had originally > suggested we were trying to do. It even seems shy of various claims > in the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements > document. > > So, I'm not opposed to working on it. But I wish it were more > ambitious. But I wish I were more ambitious, too :-) > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > email@example.com > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet