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

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

- 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