Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In the light of the above figures -- can I trust an IETF working group to
>> understand that a huge amount of effort has been put into removing
>> mechanisms from this protocol, and to respect that work?
>
>
> Yes, I think that the requirement for minimal mechanisms and a simple
> easy to implement and troubleshoot protocol can be clearly expressed.  How
> well the WG handles this depends in part on the WG chairs and how strongly
> the participants are reminded of that requirement and how stringently the
> need
> for truly active consensus is focused on.
>

Alia - can we put something to that effect in the charter?

There is a real risk that any WG working on standardizing babel will start
proposing lots of changes to the protocol (due to NIH syndrome, general
bikeshedding, etc.), alienating its author and leading to lost time and the
usual failures of design-by-committee.

To avoid this, can we see to it that the charter of any group chartered to
take babel to proposed standard status be chartered to do so without making
substantial changes to the protocol mechanics?

That way, if the protocol works well as is, we'll get a standard soon. If
it doesn't, the WG can always throw up its hands and fail fast.