I also support that homenet work being made in homenet. It is unclear to me why we are looking at an alternate way to proceed. Yours, Daniel
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:05 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing > >> dnssd work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to > progress > >> that draft /somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for dnssd. It > >> could go in v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with > >> intarea. > > >> But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set out > to > >> do. It's just a building block that might lead there. The original > >> work of homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market, and I > >> think it's because we didn't have an adoption strategy. Personally I > >> think stub networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy that > >> could ultimately produce an adoptable version of what we originally > >> tried to do. But again, only if people here want to pursue that. > > > I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document. I > > agree that it's an important document. > > If we need to keep HOMENET open to do stub networks, then let's do that. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
