Re: [fun] [IAB] Revised homenet charter for IESG consideration

On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:34 AM 6/28/11, Mark Townsley wrote:

> 
> Thanks Spencer. For my part, I have no problem with your proposed text.

Fine with me, too...

- Ralph

> 
> - Mark
> 
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
>> Dear INT ADs,
>> 
>> I don't want to interrupt the food fight just to ask someone to pass the salt, but ... :D
>> 
>> The current (last I saw) proposed charter for HOMENET didn't seem quite clear enough that having "as few subnets as possible" doesn't make the complexity of having multiple subnets go away. I was hoping that this could be stated a little more bluntly.
>> 
>> Could I suggest something like
>> 
>> OLD: o Multiple segments: While less complex L3-toplogies involving as few
>> subnets as possible are preferred in home networks for a variety of
>> reasons including simpler management and service discovery,
>> incorporation of dedicated segments remain necessary for some
>> cases. For instance, ... (excellent reasons deleted because I wasn't questioning them)
>> 
>> NEW: o Multiple segments: While less complex L3-toplogies involving as few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks for a variety of reasons including simpler management and service discovery, the introduction of more than one subnet into a home network is enough to add complexity that needs to be addressed, and multiple dedicated segments are necessary for some cases. For instance, ... (excellent reasons remain unchanged)
>> 
>> I hope this is a helpful comment, because I don't want to derail the general conversation by saying something NOT helpful.
>> 
>> Spencer 
>> _______________________________________________
>> fun mailing list
>> fun@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
> 