Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> writes: > 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.
I am in a bit of the same boat. I think most of the things in the document are reasonable things to do (with the possible exception of the requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains), but I would also like to solve some of the other problems that are deemed out of scope in the current version of the document. At a minimum, I would like to solve the "services should be visible from the outside" problem. I guess I'm fine with adopting the document, as long as it's still possible to make these kinds of adjustments in scope further along the way... :) -Toke _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet