> Apparently my comment was clear as mud. I meant this:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-25
Quote, "YANG-based JSON that describes a Thing", unquote. 61 pages.
Revision 25, and still a draft. I wish you a lot of fun implementing that.
> Having a public/private zone pair where the public zone is an image of
> the private zone that is constructed following rules, the default rule
> being "don't copy," seems very straightforward to me. It's not clear to
> me in what sense it's brittle.
It's brittle because you have state in the network. (You know, end-to-end
argument and so on.)
More concretely:
- what happens when the current hidden master loses an election? Is the
state magically transferred?
- what happens when the current hidden master crashes/is unplugged/is retired?
.... let alone the issue of electing the hidden master in the first place,
which I believe Daniel hasn't addressed at all.
> To me, the difference between what you are proposing, Juliusz, and what
> Daniel is proposing, is where the control point is. For you, the control
> point is the device.
That's right.
> For Daniel, the control point is the resolver.
Which resolver? (I could be wrong, but I don't think that the Homenet
architecture has a central resolver.)
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
