Re: [homenet] draft-boutier-homenet-source-specific-routing-00

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> In [1], you claim that your draft subsumes our work.  In [2], you
> rather rudely question whether we've read your draft.  In [3], you
> imply that our draft consists of just one page of content and that the
> rest is unrelated filler.
>
> Perhaps you could take the time to retract these claims before we
> continue this discussion?
>

I apologize if that is the way you read the messages. But I did not make
these claims.

I do think that there is substantial overlap between [TROAN] and your work.
I'm still trying to understand if the conceptual algorithm is fundamentally
the same, but it seems to me that it is. If that's true, then as a working
group, it makes more sense to build on [TROAN] rather to introduce a second
draft with a different formalization of what is in effect the same problem
and the same solution (apart from the part of the draft that documents
implementation experience, which is of course useful since it's
implementation experience). I maintain this opinion, and others may of
course disagree.

As for claiming that your draft is one page of content and unrelated
filler, I said nothing of the sort. You said [TROAN] covered roughly 15% of
your text, and I said that longer does not necessarily mean more useful.
The "6x" example was just that - an example. I thought you would agree with
me that if we increased the length of [TROAN] by 6x by adding irrelevant
text then it would not be an improvement. I didn't mean that 85% of your
draft is irrelevant.