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

["Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]>]

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?