Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

On 18.11.2015, at 16.56, Ted Lemon wrote: > 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

Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Markus, Thanks for your quick response, inline, On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 20.11.2015, at 16.47, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: >>> It is question of threats <-> risks <-> mitigation analysis. Only

Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

On 20.11.2015, at 16.47, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> It is question of threats <-> risks <-> mitigation analysis. Only thing >> HNCP security really brings is _in case of insecure L2_ _some_ security for >> routing/psk state. If we assume every other protocol

Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 18.11.2015, at 16.56, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 8:24 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> HNCP is an amazingly flexible protocol, and one that will hopefully be >>> used well

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 19.11.2015, at 16.21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > (Sorry for the N-th discuss, I quite like this protocol and > I'm sure we'll get 'em all cleared soon, but... ;-) > > I'd like to chat about whether or not the DTLS recommendations > are correct here. To me, the

Re: [homenet] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 20.11.2015, at 12.07, Steven Barth wrote: >> -- 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

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 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

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.

Re: [homenet] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Barry, thanks for your review. On 19.11.2015 06:42, Barry Leiba wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > I have two points that I'd like to discuss, both of which

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Steven, Your response look good except for... On 11/20/15 4:07 AM, Steven Barth wrote: > >> * The definition of Leaf in 5.1 is unclear. It says "Such an interface >> uses the Internal category with the exception that HNCP traffic MUST NOT >> be sent on the interface, and all such

Re: [homenet] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>>> -- 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

Re: [homenet] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the comments ;) On 18.11.2015, at 21.42, Alissa Cooper wrote: > -- How does a node end up in the leaf or guest category? Is it only if a > fixed category is configured? If so, who decides that that configuration > should happen? I think this info belongs in the

Re: [homenet] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 20.11.2015, at 17.50, Barry Leiba wrote: > I can still be convinced that this is the way to go, but I haven't > been yet, so let's please talk about it a bit more. > > I see your point about the possibility that future DNCP updates could > change the registry, though

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> Two things on this. First, is a Leaf interface on the router facing > devices that don't support HNCP or on the hosts facing an HNCP router? I > would think you would want this to be a category on the router. Second, > I don't quite understand "DNCP endpoint". There is no definition of that

Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

> On 20.11.2015, at 17.17, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: > > Hi Markus, > > Thanks for your quick response, inline, > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Markus Stenberg > wrote: >> On 20.11.2015, at 16.47, Kathleen Moriarty >>

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 20/11/15 15:35, Markus Stenberg wrote: > > [1] > https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/f8275e165802a9c310f0bbde98e42087ecc891b1 Great, that's fine to sort my discuss point. I'll clear whenever that's posted Thanks, S. ___ homenet mailing

[homenet] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)

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

Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Markus Stenberg wrote: >> I'd like to chat about whether or not the DTLS recommendations >> are correct here. To me, the consensus stuff (from section 8.3 >> of dncp) is not clearly baked (as I noted in iesg review of >> dncp). The PKI stuff is well known,

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Brian, thanks for the comments. On 19.11.2015 14:59, Brian Haberman wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > * I see where HNCP describes how interfaces are