Thanks! A couple of remaining comments below. I removed sections that
don't seem to need further discussion.
Ben.
On 18 Nov 2015, at 9:02, Steven Barth wrote:
[...]
-6.4, first paragraph: "Each HNCP node SHOULD announce an IPv6
address
and - if it supports IPv4 - MUST announce an IPv4 address,"
I don't suppose there's any way we can make IPv6 a MUST?
I guess we could unify both and make them both SHOULD or MUST. Right
now
I can't really remember the argument for or against either but I will
discuss it with Markus.
This was really wishful thinking on my part. I don't expect a change. I
was mainly reacting to IPv4 being a MUST and IPv6 not. OTOH, I'd be
equally happy if neither were MUSTSs.
-7.4, 2nd paragraph:
The MUST seems to conflict with the SHOULD in the third paragraph of
section 8.
That conflict is ruled out by the MUST in 10.1
It MUST be set to some value between 1 and 7
included (4 is the default) if the router is capable of proxying
MDNS and 0 otherwise.
and the election mechanism. If it doesn't support an MDNS proxy
(disobeying the SHOULD) it MUST announce its mdns-capability as 0 and
thus will never be elected and never be subject to the MUST in 7.4.
2nd
paragraph.
IIUC, a router that doesn't support MDNS will never be elected. So is
the statement in 7.4 that an elected router MUST support MDNS
constraining in any way?
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
