>> Why are HNCP codepoints specified as "standards action"? It's a 16-bit >> space, wouldn't "documentation required" be good enough? Or even FCFS?
> With my RFC6709 hat on, I would advocate a fairly strict policy for > extending something that walks and quacks like a routing protocol. It's not really a routing protocol -- it only installs blackhole routes and routes to directly connected prefixes, so it's unlikely to cause routing pathologies. And it's supposed to distribute random configuration information. I'll remark, while I'm at it, that the only place DHCP data can be advertised is in the EXTERNAL-CONNECTION TLV, so there's currently no way to announce e.g. "I'm a SIP proxy server" without announcing an external connection. (Everyone relax -- I'm not implementing SIP in shncpd.) > Some sort of review seems advisable. In RFC5226 terms, I'd go for > Expert Review at least. That would be fine with me. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
