On 13/07/2015 03:05, Steven Barth wrote:
...
>> => It is unclear to me how multiple instances of DNCP is run on a
>> link. Is that something that must be specified in the profile
>> document, and each profile must support multiple instances?
>> Given draft-stenberg-shsp, and the way it "hijacks" the HNCP
>> profile, it appears that more formal multiple instance support
>> would be needed.
> Hmm, I think this is up to the specific protocol. Reuse of profiles
> is in theory possible but for standardisation would require either
> one protocol updating the other OR distinct TLV-spaces. The latter
> sounds a bit awkward e.g. IANA-wise.
I don't see it as 'awkward', it just means being very systematic.
> In any case , when sharing
> transport details such as port numbers, then a shared registry would
> need to be done anyway.
That is the assumption in the current design of GDNP, which isn't even
a DNCP profile but simply a protocol assumed to co-exist with DNCP.
Whether reliance on a fiddly IANA registry is a good thing is of course
a valid question, which we will definitely have to debate in Anima.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
