IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 10 August 2017 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F28132459 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gmPpuh9b; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Si1MWwM0
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 UBq_C2l9YWfd for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176A013244F for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFD7BF590 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:38:46 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1502397526; bh=Dbhm1cifAGRr2iHrRbpXFGbxqFZzLrmPq3AMdMLIZF8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gmPpuh9b3XnIS2y7npJy8GgTNwOtb3nQ/SHXCDrLAOQyUORtqi/YLvr2fTpguc5kW 5NQMP+9ecxq8+UO2SMA1ETYmWmtojsZB9tm/BRHyUY5YRi7GSLAzxVtvzAvmbjtrpe SHY5Dx1u/IfsneCVycWQk9RmUhhFg3vTE6t1kyo4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2q-ED1MBlya for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:38:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:38:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1502397525; bh=Dbhm1cifAGRr2iHrRbpXFGbxqFZzLrmPq3AMdMLIZF8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Si1MWwM016/8lIU4L9bkcz9IFxe38XeTGMX9XOHOzqZ0Oglo4t/BfEyA9zh9o3X/K xqUoKJprNjoMEkropqpv5BAyeTWfyXbnQUr9vOKPmIEEHGvo4KNCwxH7R8mfYX4O+F CezGkPPLs3IHykrlWKBI0DwkKXj6ejXVbYCVN7eE=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: homenet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170810203843.xq7wxdxp27vqt4pz@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/sRKwhg14GyizK52d7ZgzprqOGOQ>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Aug 2017 20:38:49 -0000

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion want to express a new and different opinion?
> Barbara

I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind.

On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable and limited set of
things to do to get started with, and so I'd normally say we should
adopt it and go ahead.

On the other hand, as I suggested in Prague, it's quite a limited set
of aspirations, and quite a bit short of what we had originally
suggested we were trying to do.  It even seems shy of various claims
in the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements
document.

So, I'm not opposed to working on it.  But I wish it were more
ambitious.  But I wish I were more ambitious, too :-)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email