Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Just to clarify, mandatory to implement doesn't mean you have to write the
>> code. It means the functionality has to be present in the deployed
>> implementation so that two communicating partners can be configured to use
>> it.
>
> Um, where is that defined? I
On 19/11/2015 17:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 6:49 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> It's not a simple matter of sending a few mailing list messages -- it's
>> a long-term effort that consists of writing portable, open source,
>> lightweight implementations (hnetd, shncpd), of deplo
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 05:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 6:49 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> It's not a simple matter of sending a few mailing list messages -- it's
>> a long-term effort that consists of writing portable, open source,
>> lightweight implementations (hnetd, shn
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss
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://ww
Spencer Dawkins 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 h
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 6:49 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> It's not a simple matter of sending a few mailing list messages -- it's
> a long-term effort that consists of writing portable, open source,
> lightweight implementations (hnetd, shncpd), of deploying HNCP ourselves
> (Paris network, Henni
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> Thanks for your response and text suggestions. Inline.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
>>
>> Hello Kathleen,
>>
>> thanks for the review.
>>
>>> 1. I'm not clear on one of the
>> That's very well put, and exactly what I'm trying to explain to the
>> community. Please help me do that rather than adding to the perception
>> that HNCP contains dozens of random, arbitrary requirements.
> That's what I thought I was doing by writing that message! I am not
> sure it's helpf
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 12:23 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The bottom line is that I think the reason you have given for not making
>> DTLS MTI is a really bad one. There is a perfectly good DTLS
>> implementation out there, which is quite easy to use as far as I can tell,
>
> So I am puzzle
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 ad
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 11:28 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> If someone's argument for why not to adopt HNCP is "it's too hard," then
>> they are discounting the technical debt that they accumulate when they do
>> a one-off ad hoc protocol.
>
> That's very well put, and exactly what I'm trying to
Alissa Cooper 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 htt
Hi Steven,
Thanks for your response and text suggestions. Inline.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
>
> Hello Kathleen,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
>> 1. I'm not clear on one of the bullets in section 3,
>> o HNCP nodes MUST use the leading 64 bits o
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
>> The bottom line is that I think the reason you have given for not making
>> DTLS MTI is a really bad one. There is a perfectly good DTLS
>> implementation out there, which is quite easy to use as
Ted,
> The bottom line is that I think the reason you have given for not making DTLS
> MTI is a really bad one. There is a perfectly good DTLS implementation out
> there, which is quite easy to use as far as I can tell,
So I am puzzled. If that is the case, it is not the HNCP implementer who
> There is a reason why IETF standards are harder than ad hoc protocols: we
> specify what's needed to solve the problem generally and interoperably,
A lot of the MUST in HNCP are not about interoperability, they are about
mandating the features that we want Homenet routers that we have. In
other
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 11:04 AM Henning Rogge wrote:
> I don't think DTLS with PSK is much better than WPA2 with PSK...
True. And that does rule out tinydtls but there are quite a few other DTLS
implementations available. Is your point that we need to say more than just
that DTLS is MTI?
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 10:57 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> If you do have a reason for thinking that DTLS shouldn't be MTI, please
>> state it plainly
>
> The mesh community has been using a wide range of techniques for
> configuring routers, static configuration, configuration protocols built
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 9:20 AM Steven Barth wrote:
>> The basic idea behind the SHOULD is that there may be cases where either
>> physical security of links (e.g. cables) can be ensured or link-layer
>> security such as WPA for WiFi is present.
>> HNCP is an amazingly flexible protocol, and one that will hopefully be
>> used well beyond it's original area of application. Many of the possible
>> applications of HNCP don't require DTLS, either because the network is
>> secured at a lower layer, or because they use a different application
>
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 9:20 AM Steven Barth wrote:
> The basic idea behind the SHOULD is that there may be cases where either
> physical security of links (e.g. cables) can be ensured or link-layer
> security such as WPA for WiFi is present. In these cases (e.g. some sort
> homenet wifi repeater)
Hello Ben,
thanks for the review.
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Minor Issues:
> ===
>
> -4, 1st paragraph, last sentence:
> I confused by the fact this sen
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 8:24 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> HNCP is an amazingly flexible protocol, and one that will hopefully be
> used well beyond it's original area of application. Many of the possible
> applications of HNCP don't require DTLS, either because the network is
> secured at a lowe
Hello Benoit,
thanks for the review.
On 18.11.2015 15:20, Benoit Claise wrote:
> One issue to be discussed: the link with the future BCP
> draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-03, on the same telechat.
>
> draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-03 mentions:
>"On links w
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss
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://
Hello Kathleen,
thanks for the review.
> 1. I'm not clear on one of the bullets in section 3,
> o HNCP nodes MUST use the leading 64 bits of MD5 [RFC1321] as DNCP
> non-cryptographic hash function H(x).
>
> Is this meant to use a message digest (RFC1321) or a cryptographic hash
> for a
Dear Kathleen,
> 2. Can you explain why DTLS is a SHOULD and not a MUST? The bullet in
> section 3 reads as if this is for use, not implementation. Is there a
> MUST for implementation (I didn't see one, but maybe I missed that)?
I am not one of the authors of the draft, but I'm the author of
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Homenet Routing Consensus Call
Authors : Ray Bellis
Mark Townsley
28 matches
Mail list logo
