On 30.6.2015 15.41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Ray Bellis wrote:
If I understand correctly, work is now ongoing to create a separate
implementation of HNCP? 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. I also find them hard to read (some parts have
been changed after I gave this feedback) and it uses terminology that
might benefit from further explanation and/or making examples what they
mean. For instance, the section about "common link" (section 4). Upon
reading this, I think I understand that this applies to for instance a
shared ethernet segment where both can see each others HNCP packets.
Having an example here about why things are done, what problems are
solved etc, would probably make it easier to understand rationale for
the choices.
6.2.4 "create an on-link route"? What's an on-link route? Also, why is
it a "MAY" that it doesn't create an address for itself to this prefix?
An explanation and rationale here would be good.
6.2.6 The list of things to do there isn't clear to me. "wait for them
to be applied"? Applied where? How? Using the HCNP Prefix Assignment
Algorithm? In the RIB? It implies HNCP Prefix Assignment Algo
afterwards, but this isn't clear to me.
Section 11 about the MUST for RFC7084 compliance. What parts of RFC7084
must be implemented? MUSTs? SHOULDs?
First of all, thanks for the feedback on the content (again).
I personally think this WGLC is premature. I will not oppose it going
forward, but I have concerns that the document(s) isn't ready for
shipping off as RFCs yet due to not enough people having read them.
So I think I am basically saying that the documents are probably
correct, but there is still very valuable information still only in the
heads of the implementors that has not been written down in the
document, that would be valuable to have in there and that would also
help future implementors who might be reading the document trying to
understand what's going on, why things are done the way they are, etc.
IETF tradition is that without WGLC or other implemenation efforts,
there is not much action either. HNCP document is already soon 1.5 years
old and the number of reviews is not _that_ great outside the main
implementation crew.
Hopefully Juliusz will give us feedback on his results ASAP, and
obviously any other reviews are welcome.
Cheers,
-Markus
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
