IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Thu, 12 June 2014 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 4BD5D1B2A70 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.753
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Gv0iB4PhUDoX for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (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 B862B1A00FA for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s5CFCrd4018204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:12:53 -0700
Message-ID: <5399C375.3080301@mtcc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:12:53 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homenet@ietf.org
References: <BEB843C7-EB1D-486A-A9A1-B99D48775D33@nominet.org.uk> <C4696B2C-C08A-492C-A640-89BA25C3D4C9@iki.fi> <50B1C7AA-6909-4557-88C4-D064C9229BDA@fugue.com> <AA4217C6-39E2-4344-ABC4-8707132F20B1@iki.fi> <56D4CB23-DC44-4B55-ACED-68D6F3D43A26@fugue.com> <E625EFDA-765E-47A2-9FBE-DEB4B9EA5ECC@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <E625EFDA-765E-47A2-9FBE-DEB4B9EA5ECC@townsley.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/aEBx3hXlQKtjXUOBUCMxtnxOCI0
Subject: Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:12:55 -0000

On 06/12/2014 07:54 AM, Townsley.net wrote:
> I think for an arch document, we should talk generally about how a routing protocol could plug into the rest of the system, but stop short of details within the routing protocol itself. If routing experts are concerned the working group is going to go into bad territory with cost metrics, path calculation, etc.  toying around with text here isn't the way to go about solving that. This is not a WG charter document, it's not even normative.
>
> Bottom line: I would much rather have routing experts on list rather than writing our documents for us one discuss at a time.
>
>

That was my problem with other parts of the document: it was *way* too 
prescriptive about particular
technologies. That is wrong for the kind of document. That should be 
hashed out with actual proposed
answers to the architecture document.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email