Hiya, On 08/07/15 22:52, Pierre Pfister wrote: > Hello Stephen > > Thanks for the comments, > > See inline for my proposals. > > >> Le 8 juil. 2015 à 17:37, Stephen Farrell >> <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >> cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more >> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >> here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment/ >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> - section 3: I expected some security text here, not to say that >> this all needs to be encrypted but rather to say that because this >> is flooding, you can't really encrypt it and that hence this scheme >> is only suited for smaller deployments and/or those with lower >> layer security already in place. (And hence also probably small.) >> >> - section 3: Similarly, you could also add some privacy text to the >> effect that this scheme only applies where the privacy >> characteristics of the various prefixes involved are all roughtly >> similar, that is, where there's no real privacy difference in which >> prefixes end up with which nodes. (Mind you, I need to ponder that >> a bit myself to see if it's really the case;-) > > What about this addition to the applicability statement section: > > NEW: Finally, leaving the Flooding Mechanism or Node ID assignment > process unsecured makes the network vulnerable to deny of service > attacks, as detailed in Section 8.
That's good. > Additionally, as this algorithm requires all Nodes to know which Node > has made which assignment, it may be unsuitable depending on privacy > requirements among participating Nodes. I'm less sure of that. I think the main point is that given how the algorithm distributes prefixes one cannot assume there are any privacy-relevant differences between any of the prefixes. (But again, I'd need to think more to be sure that's correct.) > >> >> - sections 4 & 5: I found this impossible to understand in a >> (quick) linear reading. I'd find actual code easier tbh. It's >> interesting that Barry found this clear though (I did not, >> clearly:-) so this isn't a discuss. But why didn't you first >> provide an overview of the algorithm? > > It is, indeed, not straightforward, but I personally believe the text > has the merit of being unambiguous. Well, I cannot tell of course, given that I don't find it very comprehensible;-) But I'm quite willing to believe that's just my too-quick reading. > I would recommend multiple pass anyway. I would recommend trying to make it easier for the reader. Adding an overview at the front should do that. > And I believe it gets clearer > when you try to implement it. Sure. >> - Where is the evidence that the algorithm converges? I'd have >> thought there would be a reference to an academic publication that >> also described the algorithm and a proof for convergence. >> > > I wrote a proof, but could not find the time to publish it in a > scientific paper. Hmmm. Those sound like famous last words don't they? I think if we can't point at any evidence for the claim then we ought not make the claim. (The evidence doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed academic publication of course - if it has been discussed on the WG list in enough detail that'd be perfectly fine.) > I am not sure describing the algorithm in a paper would be > interesting, but the proof as well as best and worst case behaviors > might be nice to have. Sure, but not here. And if they're not published anywhere so far then better to not refer to it at all for now. Cheers, S > > > Thanks, > > - Pierre > > > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
