IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 12 June 2014 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 9F6DF1B2A05 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bHg8UQnPTu4v for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D231B287D for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (c-174-62-147-182.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [174.62.147.182]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF0FE2381522; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4696B2C-C08A-492C-A640-89BA25C3D4C9@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:04:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <50B1C7AA-6909-4557-88C4-D064C9229BDA@fugue.com>
References: <BEB843C7-EB1D-486A-A9A1-B99D48775D33@nominet.org.uk> <C4696B2C-C08A-492C-A640-89BA25C3D4C9@iki.fi>
To: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/oEWyrJKnISV8xnITSK7vup2209Y
Cc: Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>, "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
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 13:04:12 -0000

On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:
> This sounds _way_ too specific to me. Like a lot of the document by now.
> Specifying routing protocol path cost function in _architecture_ document?
> Ha ha.

If you are just going to laugh, then I'm not going to approve the document, and you should definitely ask nomcom to replace me if you feel that is the right thing to do.   I would prefer that we have a discussion about what the text should say, but that's entirely up to you.

What I would like to see as feedback is a clear statement of what the routing paradigm is, not agreement that the text as currently written is correct.   This statement should be inclusive of whatever routing protocols the working group is inclined to consider, but it should be selective enough that it says what the working group actually wants, and doesn't cover all possible routing protocols.   I very much do not want the working group to fight out the routing protocol question right now, but I think it's possible to get this text to a point where it satisfies the DISCUSS it was supposed to satisfy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email