Hello Stephen
Thanks for the comments,
See inline for my proposals.
Le 8 juil. 2015 à 17:37, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie a écrit :
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: 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-prefix-assignment/
--
COMMENT:
--
- section 3: I expected some security text here, not to say that
this all needs to be encrypted but rather to say that because
this is flooding, you can't really encrypt it and that hence
this scheme is only suited for smaller deployments and/or those
with lower layer security already in place. (And hence also
probably small.)
- section 3: Similarly, you could also add some privacy text to
the effect that this scheme only applies where the privacy
characteristics of the various prefixes involved are all
roughtly similar, that is, where there's no real privacy
difference in which prefixes end up with which nodes. (Mind you,
I need to ponder that a bit myself to see if it's really the
case;-)
What about this addition to the applicability statement section:
NEW:
Finally, leaving the Flooding Mechanism or Node ID assignment process
unsecured makes the network vulnerable to deny of service attacks, as
detailed in Section 8. Additionally, as this algorithm requires all
Nodes to know which Node has made which assignment, it may be
unsuitable depending on privacy requirements among participating
Nodes.
- sections 4 5: I found this impossible to understand in a
(quick) linear reading. I'd find actual code easier tbh. It's
interesting that Barry found this clear though (I did not,
clearly:-) so this isn't a discuss. But why didn't you first
provide an overview of the algorithm?
It is, indeed, not straightforward, but I personally believe the text has the
merit
of being unambiguous.
I would recommend multiple pass anyway. And I believe it gets clearer when you
try to implement it.
- Where is the evidence that the algorithm converges? I'd have
thought there would be a reference to an academic publication
that also described the algorithm and a proof for convergence.
I wrote a proof, but could not find the time to publish it in a scientific
paper.
I am not sure describing the algorithm in a paper would be interesting, but the
proof as well as best and worst case behaviors
might be nice to have.
Thanks,
- Pierre
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
