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
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to