Hi, > On 9 Jul 2015, at 16:35, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > 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>
Having reviewed the homenet prefix distribution draft for OPS-DIR, I would say that *that* is an algorithm. It mentions no protocol specifics (and is thus not something you could build an interoperable implementation from). Tim > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
