After much thought, I have settled on the following:
Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a distinguishing
feature of Homenet, and one that is requested by our users. In
the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing protocol
attempts to minimise the
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>> we are writing a standards document, not a 19th century romance novel
>
> It is a truth generally acknowledged that a single man in possession of
> a good fortune must be in want of a home network.
Ah yes, much better. I for one believe it prudent to
> we are writing a standards document, not a 19th century romance novel
It is a truth generally acknowledged that a single man in possession of
a good fortune must be in want of a home network.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>>> This is not the notion that I tried to express, probably badly. It's not
>>> necessarily the important feature, it's the one that will make people
>>> implement and deploy the protocol stack in the first place.
>
>> Suggestion for '"killer feature"
>> This is not the notion that I tried to express, probably badly. It's not
>> necessarily the important feature, it's the one that will make people
>> implement and deploy the protocol stack in the first place.
> Suggestion for '"killer feature" of Homenet': driver for using Homenet
That's
> > Perhaps I could suggest something in the vein of "very important" or
> > "much desired feature"
>
> This is not the notion that I tried to express, probably badly. It's not
> necessarily the important feature, it's the one that will make people
> implement and deploy the protocol stack in
> I too think the rationale is important but the phrasing may be confusing.
> Being
> a native speaker of U.S. English (and almost fluent in Southern Californiaese
> ;-) I found the colloquialisms confusing.
Being myself a native speaker of an Eastern-European dialect with way too
many
Minor issues:
Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer
feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and
easy to explain to our bosses. In the absence of dynamically
SB> Not sure explicability to your boss counts for much as a basis for
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
Thanks for your comments, Stewart.
> if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
> persistent oscillations might occur.
SB> Is this consistent with the statement earlier in the para that
SB> " Distinct
SB>
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For
10 matches
Mail list logo