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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 11:28 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> If someone's argument for why not to adopt HNCP is "it's too hard," then
>> they are discounting the technical debt that they accumulate when they do
>> a one-off ad hoc protocol.
> 
> That's very well put, and exactly what I'm trying to explain to the
> community.  Please help me do that rather than adding to the perception
> that HNCP contains dozens of random, arbitrary requirements.

That's what I thought I was doing by writing that message!   I am not sure it's helpful for me to pop up on the olsr mailing list and start talking about this, and I also don't really have time, but I will see what I can do.

>> There is a reason why the IETF seems slow.
> 
> You're changing the subject, Ted.  Nobody mentioned timeliness.

That's how I read what you said.   I don't think it matters--whether it's timeliness or complexity, there are definitely costs to writing standards for everybody to follow.

> I'm arguing against making strong requirements that will be ignored by any
> sensible implementer.  "Hey, you don't need to deploy that, but you still
> MUST carry the dead code in your implementation".

Right, but I am disputing your claim that they don't need to deploy that.   Deploying it may be a regrettably manual process at the moment, but I think it is very much needed.
 
> How much more silly can one get?

I suspect that collectively we can get very silly indeed, should we choose to seriously put this question to the test, but perhaps that's more of a thing for a bar bof than a working group... ;)


--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[e-mail]