> If I understand correctly, work is now ongoing to create a separate > implementation of HNCP?
It's just a private hack, but might end up being useful. The initial plan was to spend a week-end explaining DNCP to myself, but the week-end has now become four days. I'm doing full DNCP right now (with keepalives, without unicast endpoints, and omitting one micro-optimisation that I happen to disagree with), and just enough HNCP to get hnetd to speak to me. 1500 LOC, not counting MD5. > This would be a good step to address my concern I have voiced privately > to the authors that not enough people have gone through the document. Yes, it would have been a good thing if some large private-sector actor with an interest in home networking had sponsored an independent reimplementation before the DNCP WGLC. > I personally think this WGLC is premature. I'm actually more concerned by DNCP. HNCP is extensible -- if we get it wrong, we can deprecate some TLVs and add new ones without breaking compatibility. Not so DNCP -- DNCP requires precise state synchronisation, so any trivial change is likely to require a whole new protocol. Plus there's no version number in DNCP, so the only way to evolve it is to pick a new port (picking a new multicast group will not be enough in case clients want to participate in both variants). I've got a large list of DNCP issues, which I'll probably be able to write up today or tomorrow. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
