Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)
On 20 Nov 2015, at 1:30, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 18.11.2015, at 17.02, Steven Barthwrote: -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 current MUST + SHOULD is actually result of developments during summer (not sure if it was this summer, but I suspect so). Note that it does NOT say that you MUST assign IPv4 and SHOULD assign IPv6; it talkes entirely about announcing the said assignment. The assignment is also used for conflict resolution, but (at the time) the people who discussed these noted that RFC7217 is unlikely to conflict, and therefore announcing the assignments is nice to have, but not mandatory (and you could also use e.g. DAD if you really wanted to as this is simply local state on a link). In case of IPv4, where we essentially pick out of /26, 1 in 64 chance of collision (1 in ~8 due to birthday paradox) was not considered as good odds and therefore it was made a MUST; there is no IPv4 DAD as fallback either. I am not fine with SHOULD for IPv4 as it will essentially break it; I can live with MUST for IPv6 but consider it unneccessary. Let me know how you feel about it (or if we should add the justification text to the document). Your answer makes perfect sense. My wishful thinking was just wishful. Ben. [...] ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)
> I am not fine with SHOULD for IPv4 as it will essentially break it; Agreed, but I don't feel strongly about it. > I can live with MUST for IPv6 but consider it unneccessary. Agreed, announcing your IPv6 address, if it's chosen randomly, just wastes 24 bytes * prefixes * nodes * interfaces. That's 2.4kB of uselessly flooded data in a mere 10 node network with two prefixes. (Recall that HNCP doesn't have link-local signalling or delayed flooding -- anything that's announced must be flooded throughout the network in a timely manner.) -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)
Hello Ben, thanks for the review. > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Minor Issues: > === > > -4, 1st paragraph, last sentence: > I confused by the fact this sentence says nodes MUST include > HNCP-Version, then goes on to talk about nodes _not_ including it. I added a note that the presence of the TLV indicates the support for the currently defined HNCP version. The idea is that in case there are other DNCP nodes that speak a different HNCP version their information is still spread in the DNCP sense, but not interpreted. > -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. > -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. > > -14.2: > It looks like some, maybe most, of the informative references need to be > normative. They are cited with 2119 language, cited in other protocol > definition, or are otherwise required to fully understand this draft: > 3004, 2131, 3315, 3633, 4291, 1321, 6762, 6763, 2132, 4193, 7084, 7217, > 4861, and 6092. Ok we will reevaluate the references in the coming days and see which of those should be promoted. > > > Editorial Comments: > = > > -4, 2nd paragraph: "Any node announcing the value 0 is considered to not > advertise the respective capability and thus does not take part in the > respective election." > > Am I correct to assume this means "any node announcing the value 0 for a > particular capability..."? Yes, clarified. > > - 5.1:"Internal category":"HNCP traffic MUST be sent and received." > What must send and receive it? (Similar comments for External Category). Changed to "The interface MUST (NOT) operate as a DNCP endpoint" > > -6.5: > Please expand "ULA" on first mention. Done. > > - 9, 1st paragraph: "The scheme SHOULD be used only in conjunction" > "SHOULD ... only" is a subtle way of saying SHOULD NOT. I suggest the > following: > OLD: > The scheme SHOULD be used only in conjunction... > NEW: > The scheme SHOULD NOT be used unless in conjunction... Staged for next revision. > > - 14.3: > Looks like neither URL will be cited once the RFC editor removes the > appendices marked for deletion. Okay, will try to see if we can convince xml2rfc to mark this section for removal somehow. Otherwise we probably need to manually modify the .txt Cheers, Steven ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)
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