IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Fri, 11 August 2017 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52A5132530 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 04:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 nh91bhYW5bzc for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 04:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B8D31324E9 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 04:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id v7BBxIuE026706; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:18 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9F8EB344; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id PjMc2-nlhkfw; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D178EB342; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:16 +0200
Message-ID: <87fucygvsb.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:59:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 598D9C16.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 598D9C16.003 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 598D9C16.003 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/VE1HnBBD-8N9OhLTNQvobWSCLcE>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:59:25 -0000

> Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the
> reasoning for objection was flawed (that Juliusz was setting the bar too
> high and the procedural objections were not valid in the context of IETF
> procedures).

I probably expressed myself badly -- my objections were technical, not
procedural.

In simple terms, I said "Why don't we try implementing bits of this
document before we adopt".  I never said "We need seven interoperable
independent implementations before adoption".

-- Juliusz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email