Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:59 AM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The Chairs have already agreed about the five topics to be covered.  It's not a problem.  The next step would be to take these topics, make them accessible to the average reader, and organize them.  This may require avoiding too many details if it is doable.

I think that you are interpreting this document to be something that it is not, and cannot yet be.   What this document is is an architecture for the homenet working group—a crib sheet that tells us what we are trying to accomplish.   I don't think it's intended to be something that a random person who is not implementing home gateways would find useful.   The working group is hoping that subsequent versions of this document will evolve over time, and I think it would be good for the working group to evolve the document into something that meets the goals that you've set out above.

However, I think that if the working group attempts to do that now, two things will happen.  First, the working group won't actually get to the work it's supposed to be doing, because completing the architecture document will continue to be an all-consuming effort.   Second, the document that is produced will be purely theoretical, not based on actual practice, and probably useless.

So I would like you to consider whether you can accept this restatement of the purpose of the document.   Do you feel that this document cannot be of use until it meets the goals you've set out above, or does the different purpose I've expressed here make sense to you?   If the latter, can you reconsider your review in light of this new stated purpose for the document?   Is part of the problem that the goals of the document are poorly expressed in the document?   Given the goals I've stated, do all of your comments still apply, or would you have responded differently to the document if you'd been evaluating it on the basis I'm proposing?