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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 18 November 2015 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CA91B3055 for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:06:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.487
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UOj4JewdeQxk for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53991B304D for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14478843950960.014707250753417611"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:06:35 +0000
Message-Id: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:06:41 -0000

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 -

My PGP key: