I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNS is a side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time. If I interpret the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.
Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong ( "we will never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"... the list can be as long as we wish). It should not be considered in the decision to move the document forward. Will it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more than Stephen or Juliusz. I am happy to have this discussion in 2 years. Today it gives a toxic tone to the discussion. I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how many reviews would have been considered sufficient. Looking at the homenet mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects the participation of the mailing list. Though I really value your review, I am not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages additional reviews, as it forces the potential reviewer to take position against the opinion of the chair. It seems to me that, if the number of reviews were an issue, this could have been addressed otherwise. >From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and technical comments have been addressed. Regarding the support, the proposal was initiated by an ISP. Today, I am interested in this proposal because we have some demand for it. That some folks prefer using DDNS for their own purpose is orthogonal to us. This is why we want it to be published. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: > > > > Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning. > > > > So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization > > process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction > > to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely > > commercially deployed? > > No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst > a bunch of personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy > to discuss with the authors without wearing any chair > or other hat. > > The process problem with these drafts is the lack of > review means there's no way to claim they represent any > useful level of WG consensus. > > Cheers, > S. > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
