Hello Benoit, On 21.10.2015 16:12, Benoit Claise wrote: > 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?
No, that is not true. The applicability section also mentions e.g.: 1. "each node needs to be able to store the entirety of the data published by all nodes" 2. "As the [...] frequency of data changes per node increases [...] the benefit of using DNCP diminishes." 3. "If the TLV set published by a node is very large, and has frequent small changes, DNCP as currently specified in this specification may be unsuitable as it lacks a delta synchronization scheme to keep implementation simple." I'm not sure what other points could be added, however it intentionally is designed as a generic TLV-sharing protocol so its potential applicability is broad. Could you please provide some guidance on other factors we should evaluate in the Applicability section? We are currently feeling a bit lost on how we should address your concerns. Thanks, Steven _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
