Fully agree with Brian, Juliusz and the various others - there needs to
be a mandatory routing protocol, but there's no need at all for HNCP
need to reference the actual protocol. The HNCP *protocol* works fine
whatever routing protocol is chosen. The router as a whole doesn't. It
simply means that implementing this single HNCP draft is not enough to
get a full homenet router. But:
-- there is *no* claim that the HNCP draft *alone* gets you a full
homenet router! --
There simply needs to be another document that completes the picture.
But there is no point in holding up HNCP for that document.
-David
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:33:57AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 23/07/2015 04:06, Sander Steffann wrote:
> >> If that makes sense (for any value of IsBabeliS) I don't think we have a
> >> problem.
> >> I would suggesting adding text near the beginning stating that HNCP is
> >> agnostic
> >> about the routing protocol, but that a single routing protocol must be
> >> used.
> >
> > And that "single routing protocol" is ... ???
>
> Irrelevant to *this* discussion. If we want to get the HNCP draft out of the
> door,
> we need it to be independent of the choice.
>
> > This basically just ignores the problem
>
> No it doesn't. It says that it's an orthogonal problem.
>
> > that a routing protocol must be chosen and might even open the door to
> > vendor A saying "our single routing protocol is X" and vendor B saying "our
> > single routing protocol is Y". This decision has to be made at some point...
>
> Yes, but it's a different decision from "Do we have consensus on HNCP?".
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
