Hi, Steven, and thanks for the response. > I have changed them all to: > > It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable of doing FOO, > otherwise it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1 to > 7 to indicate a non-default priority. The values 8-15 are reserved > for future use. > > I hope this clears it up.
It does. I'd prefer lowercase "may", rather than the 2119 key word -- the SHOULD has the 2119 language covered -- but, in any case, this resolves the DISCUSS point nicely. Thanks. >> -- Section 13 -- >> I have two concerns with how the HNCP TLV Types registry is specified: >> >> 1. Because the DNCP TLV Types registry specifically allocates 32-511 for >> profiles, it'd be better to simply limit the range of values in this >> registry to those values, rather than making it broader and duplicating >> the other values from the other registry. >> >> 2. I think it's a bad idea for HNCP to re-define DNCP's Private Use range >> in its registry. I would rather see this be text in the document (here >> in the IANA Considerations is a fine place for it) that says that HNCP >> uses the Private Use range for per-implementation experimentation, and >> not have that be in the HNCP registry. >> >> In other words, I'd make it more like this (and add a reference to RFC >> 5226): >> >> NEW >> IANA should set up a registry for the (decimal values within range >> 32-511, as allocated to profiles by DNCP) "HNCP TLV Types" under >> "Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP)", with the following >> initial contents: >> >> 32: HNCP-Version >> 33: External-Connection >> 34: Delegated-Prefix >> 35: Assigned-Prefix >> 36: Node-Address >> 37: DHCPv4-Data >> 38: DHCPv6-Data >> 39: DNS-Delegated-Zone >> 40: Domain-Name >> 41: Node-Name >> 42: Managed-PSK >> 43: Prefix-Policy >> 44-511: Unassigned >> >> The policy "RFC Required" [RFC5226] should be used for future >> assignments. >> >> The range reserved by DNCP for Private Use (768-1023) is used by >> HNCP for per-implementation experimentation. How collisions are >> avoided is out of scope of this document. >> END >> >> Does that make sense? > > Yes, I will talk to Markus about it, but from my point of view your > suggestion looks good. I'll respond to Markus's message on this point. Your responses to my other comments are good, and thanks for addressing them. Barry _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
