Re: [homenet] naming drafts

Stephen Farrell wrote on 07/06/2021 21:32:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to
>> actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them.
>
> Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than
> the proposal here, rather I don't find the arguments as to
> why this is "better" convincing, and so, given that DDNS is
> deployed, and has some similarity, I'm wondering if this
> spec really has much of a chance at gaining traction.
>
> As a result, I don't really think there's that much value
> in attempting a point-scoring exercise comparing the two,
> the question for me is really whether or not this spec is
> so much better than DDNS that it could displace DDNS, and
> I'm not convinced as of now. (But I'm often wrong of course.)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.

So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization 
process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction 
to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely 
commercially deployed?

If that is the case, then perhaps the WG should have steered the draft 
to have been "DDNS, but standardised" or "a TR-069 compatible interface 
for DNS zone delegation".

-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>