Hi Joe On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It's far too early to discuss whether this doc could *become* a useful WG > doc; in it's current form, there's simply no hint of that yet. IMO, the > authors should take another shot at it, and then we can see if there's > really anything useful to pursue here. The current doc does NOT make that > case yet. > > > > Can you be more specific? Apparently there is some misunderstanding. There are two parts in this discussion. One part is polemic, another part is non-polemic: (1) the non-polemic part is about the *physical connectivity* that is experienced on networks tackled by MANET, ROLL, 6Lo and a slew of other working groups in this domain. This physical connectivity is pretty well described in the draft, and I think it should be easy to get consensus on that, with minimal changes. (2) the polemic part is about what link model / architecture /solution applies best to such physical connectivity. This discussion, as well as previous discussions in AUTOCONF, show that it is not trivial to agree on something. However: the chances of agreeing on a solution for (2) are significantly lower if (1) has not concluded with a clear documentation of the *beast* to be tamed. This is why a document such as the draft discussed -- which addresses only the *non-polemic* part of the discussion -- would be useful. Do you disagree with the above? If so, why? This is unclear. Best, Emmanuel
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
