Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Brian's Discuss. 1) In Sec 1.1, it states "...in homenet environments where multiple IPv6 source-prefixes can be present, routing based on source and destination address is necessary [RFC7368]." Looking at RFC7368, I don't see anything that matches the strength of this assertion which says in Sec 3.2.4 merely "Another avenue is to introduce support throughout the homenet for routing that is based on the source as well as the destination address of each packet." While src-dest routing is certainly a solution - and an interesting one - it doesn't seem at all appropriate for an HNCP spec to assert that it is necessary. 2) For the DNCP profile, draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-12 says "Anything received over multicast, except Node Endpoint TLV (Section 7.2.1) and Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2)." and this draft says "HNCP nodes MUST ignore all Node State TLVs received via multicast on a link which has DNCP security enabled in order to prevent spoofing of node state changes." Could you please align and clarify the desired behavior for HNCP? _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
