Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-name-version>.txt Reviewer: Lizhong Jin Review Date: Oct, 21st IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standards Track *Summary:* I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. *Comments:* - This draft provides an abstraction protocol specification, instead of defining a real protocol. If authors could provide a realistic standardized protocol based on this draft, that would be more convincing. - My biggest concern of this draft is the hash based network state update. The draft does not describe the case of hash collision. If the hash collision happens, then the network state will fail to update, which will be a severe problem. Although it maybe low probability of hash collision if we have longer hash length, but the question is, does the network could accept one collision? *Nits:* - Some acronyms need to expand when first use, e.g., A_NC_I, CA, SHSP. Regards Lizhong
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
