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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 19 November 2015 04:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3E11A702C for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:14:33 -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 SrlGqUGB0k5X for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:14:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6AA1A6FBE for <>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14479064685790.3323600934818387"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 04:14:28 +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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 04:14:33 -0000

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 6:49 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> It's not a simple matter of sending a few mailing list messages -- it's
> a long-term effort that consists of writing portable, open source,
> lightweight implementations (hnetd, shncpd), of deploying HNCP ourselves
> (Paris network, Henning's network somewhere in Germany), of getting HNCP
> implementations into Linux and Unix distributions (OpenWRT by Steven,
> Debian/Ubuntu soon, I'm not telling), of speaking to people at community
> meetings (Battlemesh, IETF, CCC, FOSDEM), in short, making HNCP familiar
> and easily available.

Sure, that's fair enough.

> (And as we're trying to communicate our message in a clear and accurate
> manner, how helpful it is to be able to say that a feature is "mandatory
> to implement, optional to use, but you're not allowed to #ifdef it away".)

Just to clarify, mandatory to implement doesn't mean you have to write the code.   It means the functionality has to be present in the deployed implementation so that two communicating partners can be configured to use it.   Mandatory to use means that the functionality has to be used at all times.

Sent from Whiteout Mail -

My PGP key: