[homenet] FW: New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt

["Howard, Lee" <[e-mail]>]

I got tired of waiting for someone else to drive consensus on a routing solution, so I
wrote a draft.  It would have been better to have a draft for each proposal, describing
how it meets the requirements.  I list the contenders that I can recall (zOSPF, RIPng,
UP-PIO, IS-IS, MANEMO, RPL), and evaluate each based on the routing requirements
I sent a couple of months ago.[1]

You may disagree with my evaluation of a given solution for a given requirement.
Great, say so, and we'll figure out if the requirement was poorly written (in fact, a
lot of them are non-requirements and should be removed), or if I misunderstand
the protocol, or if I was unfair to some idea, or if there's a better word than
"somewhat."

In particular, I have no knowledge of MANEMO or RPL, so I can't evaluate them.
MANEMO probably shouldn't be here, since there isn't even a draft to point to.

If you don't see your favorite protocol on this list, you need to submit a draft
explaining how it solves all these problems.

I hope folks find this useful.[2]

Lee




[1]The current version of homenet-arch doesn't include those, so I posted it as a
standalone draft, draft-howard-homenet-routing-requirements

[2] If it needs a serious rev, I'll clean up the References section, and maybe
rewrite the requirements draft to move non-requirements to a separate
section.  But if it helps the WG progress and doesn't need to be published,
that's good, too.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:21 PM
> To: Howard, Lee
> Cc: Howard, Lee
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Lee Howard and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename:      draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison
> Revision:      00
> Title:                 Evaluation of Proposed Homenet Routing Solutions
> Creation date:         2011-12-29
> WG ID:                 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 14
>
> Abstract:
>    This document evaluates the various proposals for routing in an
>    unmanaged home network.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.