Subject: Re: [babel] A quick summary of babel@ietf

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:36:31 +0200

> Second, running code is great - but its lack shouldn't stand as
> a barrier to writing a draft or suggesting an idea.

Agreed, we should be serious about this requirement but not dogmatic.  We
should be very strict about mechanisms that are required: if you want to
put a MUST or a SHOULD in the core specification, you should be able to
either implement it yourself or convince me or Toke to get it implemented.
On the other hand, we can be more liberal with optional mechanisms.  (As
a matter of fact, RFC 6126 contains one optional mechanism that has never
been implemented -- third paragraph of Section 3.3 -- and I wish to keep
it in, it may be handy in the future.)

I think we should also be liberal about extensions, as long as we're
convinced that they don't break interoperability with the core protocol.
The TLV type space is large, it doesn't harm much if we burn a few TLVs
on extensions that turn out to be too difficult to implement.

-- Juliusz

P.S. Mail server down until Thursday, please reply on list.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:38:08 -0400

> either implement it yourself or convince me or Toke to get it implemented.

It looked like there were more people in the room interested in
implementing too :)

> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>