On 09/07/2015 16:28, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> It is very hard to find a wording for this that everyone agrees with. > > Yes. > >> For now it was changed to “DNCP is an abstract protocol, that must be >> combined with a specific profile to make a complete implementable >> protocol.” > > I'm not sure that I know what an "abstract protocol" is. I would suggest > something like the following: > > This document (DNCP) defines a distributed algorithm that can be used by > protocols that need to flood static or slowly changing information in > a timely manner across an IP network, as well as a suggested packet > format to be used by such protocols. > > I'd also eliminate the vague term "DNCP profile", and replace it by > "protocol using DNCP".
<no-hat> The draft defines TLVs. To me that means it's somewhat more than an "algorithm". In OO programming terms, it would be an "abstract" superclass of HNCP, but it's not "pure abstract" </no-hat> Ray _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
