On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 9:12 AM Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 16:15, Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > I am doing the follow-up and would like to check if there are any > specific questions regarding the current version of the document. > > During IETF-115 I talked to Michael. It helped confirm the parts that I > thought were unspecified. While I do believe that makes the protocol > practically undeployable, as the hard parts have been left out of scope, I > can now reread the document with that understanding. > Make sure you point out what you believe is practically undeployable. > > I do think Experimental is a better classification than Standard Track > though because of this. It is hard to see how two implementations can fully > interact and interoperate. Does anyone know of any implementations ? > Again make sure "this" is clearly specified so it can potentially be addressed/discussed. Until "this" is not clearly stated, it cannot justify the downgrade to Experimental. In our case, our products need a Standard Track. Ray has an implementation not published as open source yet. > > Paul -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
