> One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used > (with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were > used as the homenet protocol.
I see that you've been speaking with Abrahamsson. Please let me give you some background. Two years ago, there was a very animated discussion about whether the configuration protocol and the routing protocol should be separate or not. After a lot of energy was spent on the issue, Markus designed HNCP, which went through a few iterations. The chairs judged that WG consensus was achieved, and the configuration protocol is now separate from the routing protocol. Since achieving consensus on this was a lot of work, some of us are somewhat annoyed at Mikael bringing this argument back from the dead at every opportunity. > If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in the document? I seem to recall that I already mentioned that I find your tendency to bring out controversial arguments just before a deadline somewhat offputting. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
