Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 19 November 2015 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144211A8AB9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:03:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QibC9UsSljY7 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A411A8AB5 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter28-d.gandi.net (mfilter28-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.159]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAFF17209C; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:03:00 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter28-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter28-d.gandi.net (mfilter28-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lctc8OnLMvNS; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:02:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 93.199.254.229
Received: from nar.local (p5DC7FEE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.254.229]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FC6E1720B4; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:02:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <564D7421.8070501@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:02:57 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <20151117235034.24927.22561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <87poz7qw2k.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447858576159-79d51c78-b96c8c38-55ec1307@fugue.com> <8737w3qozs.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447863094928-7e8a26f0-271186df-921ed76e@fugue.com> <87vb8zp903.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447884395403-59f7ba69-4ce68f01-0794a090@fugue.com> <87egfmq35o.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447906468890-334068f2-9e166c9c-ff8d872f@fugue.com> <564D70DC.7050701@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <564D70DC.7050701@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/0imDxkmvUZ5U9376_T6C4D8EEzM>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:03:04 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Just to clarify, mandatory to implement doesn't mean you have to write the code.   It means the functionality has to be present in the deployed implementation so that two communicating partners can be configured to use it.   
> 
> Um, where is that defined? Is there a BCP that says that?
> 
> I don't think a protocol spec can say that feature X cannot be ifdeffed.
> It can say that a protocol must be capable of X and that implementations
> must therefore be capable of X. But if you tell implementors that they can't
> ifdef unused stuff when building images for highly constrained nodes, I
> don't think they will take you seriously.

Maybe slightly off-topic for homenet, but +1000 for constrained node
networks.

Grüße, Carsten