On 26/07/2015 16:10, Ted Lemon wrote:
Based on the experience with the DT, it’s clear that some of the points that
are made in the homenet architecture document were not sufficiently clear.
However, all of these points have been discussed by the working group over the
past four years, and the lack of clarity in the document is not the result of a
lack of clarity on the part of the working group; indeed, probably just the
opposite.
Ted - thanks.
Some will recall that some things were intentionally left out of RFC
7368 precisely because being more specific would have prejudiced any
future protocol selection.
That's why RFC 7368 was silent on the specifics of whether we use
routing metrics (and thereby implicitly favouring link state over
distance vector or vice versa) but just says that the system should be
able to cope with links of varying qualities. The document is generally
more interested in the end results, rather than the means.
As Terry announced, the DT will now produce an I-D that will seek to
document the current working group consensus on our routing requirements
so that an informed decision can be made.
Please, let's work on *constructive* feedback towards that goal, and in
the meantime make good progress on our remaining working group items.
thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
