Steven,
Thanks, that goes in the right direction.
Trying to answer the question "when not to use DNCP?", do I understand
correctly that there is only one limitation: the **64kB size
Except that, DNCP is generically applicable. Really?
Regards, B.
Hello Benoit,
thanks for your feedback.
I've staged the following additions for -12 in our Git:
https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/859a37237
Would that address your DISCUSS? If not, please let us know what you
would like us to add or change in addition.
Thanks,
Steven
On 20.10.2015 22:41, Benoit Claise wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other ADs focused on the protocol specific points. So let me focus on
something else.
The applicability section doesn't answer my questions: when to (re-)use
this protocol?
Note that the write-up mentioned ANIMA.
I see the protocol description:
DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
shared and common view about the data published by every currently or
recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node in a network.
However, this applicability section doesn't tell me when to re-use DNCP
(or define a profile for it).
I see an effort to address my discuss in the appendix B of draft version
11. Thanks
What would solve my DISCUSS is an applicability section that would
contain
a high level set of criteria that would briefly explain whether DNCP is
applicable for
the specifications I have in mind. The first 2 paragraphs of section 1.1
is a good start,
then it goes considerations about Trickle, the interval A_NC_I, etc ...
and you lose the
readers.
Something like:
DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
shared and common view about the data published by every currently or
recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node in a network.
[As an example of what I'm expected, see below.
Btw, I have no idea if this text is correct or complete, but that's
besides the point]
DNCP works with profiles in which you have the flexibility to
specify:
- the appropriate transport: the available options are TCP and UDP
(see
section appendix B for the tradeoffs)
- the transport security: TLS or DTLS, see appendix B).
- If service discovery is required, an optional multicast service can
be defined.
- TO BE COMPLETED
DNCP is applicable to LAN, WAN, or even the Internet.
DNCP can exchange enterprise specific TLV or an IANA registry could be
specified
DNCP specific extensions are possible.
TO BE COMPLETED
DNCP limitations:
- Data published limited to 64kB
- Doesn't work for SCTP, DCCP
- All devices in the network must be DNCP node?
- TO BE COMPLETED
To summarize, I need the 2 min elevator pitch of when (not) to use DNCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- I would agree with Alvaro, when he wrote: "In general, I found the text
not straight forward or easy to understand." Potentially due to the
structure.
- I hope that a document about manageability considerations (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A) will follow.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
