On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:38, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote: >> No, the problem is that the working group doesn't know what is being asked >> for. > > We could go around on this all week…
I must say as the editor of the arch text I am also very confused. I don’t understand what is required in a replacement for the “contentious" paragraph (paragraph 4 of section 3.5), rather than simply removing the paragraph based on strong WG consensus. In producing the -13, which was pushed out at IETF London, it seemed to me that there was clear WG consensus in that meeting that we should not constrain, witness the minutes at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-homenet (under Slide 9). This view was reinfroced by comments elsewhere, and by the WG chairs. While it’s possible the WG view may have changed since London, it’s not a big surprise that it hasn’t. That message is why the one reference to link metrics earlier in section 3.5 is clearly qualified by “if supported by the protocol in use”. As Ray points out, the paragraph added by the Routing ADs does make other some text in other paragraphs (which isn’t so prescriptive) seem out of place. My personal view, which happens to be in line with most (all?) who have commented in the WG is simply to strike the proposed prescriptive paragraph. The question of course is whether/if Ted can square that off with our routing ADs who have genuine concern in raising the issue… it’s simply that the WG is coming back here and saying “it’s OK, thanks for raising the point, but we’re sure we want to do it this way”. The -13 also includes other changes in response to discussion at London, as documented in the minutes, e.g. about the zero or one routing protocols. Tim
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
