IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Objection to late change in draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 08 July 2015 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 E69081A8761; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 HQTU1qZoVqgq; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x234.google.com (mail-pd0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB1AA1A8716; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbqm3 with SMTP id qm3so7723865pdb.0; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=V8UdW78BNKXndYvLj/uE3imgqmb67oOo/KdCfntz54M=; b=kAOlAvTK5TdV04mFLsqq1aIfqaGteECjnUBAllDcSg+Y0HCF4F4v2t339PUvoMPp5o Nqi7f6/UGxi93Jo9etFEDGmZoJmEV01tvgF8XilPvskhCnqaKDAA2QserpRfGFfHi6RN ob34WzJrkzQu9S/tgTvRODI1o68DPxLTIgpYEMysbqTVTIwJpgu/TvCLU4JJ+6XlZBld wu55Mfb9E7N3eUYk3ymBcXImm4kW/ppJ4xbweVCu80IP9PTnOcOoeJ4a416qc2f8//1L Dv7rTEe2fktVZ/6UrTfvSuKzkCXiCAjIoJiAfyu35ufYhgF2ojy6yDC64syFn6W1d+kC waSw==
X-Received: by 10.68.193.232 with SMTP id hr8mr23840690pbc.145.1436386175459; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6f73:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6f73:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ti10sm3427118pab.20.2015.07.08.13.09.31 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <559D8380.7020902@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:09:36 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
References: <559C2C60.8060103@gmail.com> <3B167F04-1E96-4883-B317-01639CD5197C@darou.fr> <559C4394.6000502@gmail.com> <559D2F4B.1080805@openwrt.org>
In-Reply-To: <559D2F4B.1080805@openwrt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/LZtJ-PwLQ_yHs6iDe2CNdkdbUWI>
Cc: meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com, homenet@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Objection to late change in draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:09:37 -0000

On 09/07/2015 02:10, Steven Barth wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 07.07.2015 um 23:24 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
>> Your explanation is fine but the phrase "and can therefore be used in
>> fully autonomic as well as professionally managed networks" still makes
>> some big assumptions. How about "and can therefore be used more
>> widely than in unmanaged home networks"?
> 
> I would disagree here, the statement "autonomic" or "fully autonomic" is perfectly
> fitting for the kind of networks this algorithms can be used in. It can certainly
> also be used in professionally managed networks or do you see any reason why it
> cannot?

The current text implies (to me) that it's necessary and sufficient, which is
definitely not the case and was never discussed in the WG anyway. The change
most recently suggested by Pierre is OK for me.

Rgds
   Brian


> 
> This said, it does not necessarily mean that it is a perfect fit for all kinds of
> these networks, but nobody did claim that either. It is extensible though so there
> is no way to discard it for these usecases that easily.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Steven
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email