Re: [homenet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Steven,

Thanks, that goes in the right direction.
Trying to answer the question "when not to use DNCP?", do I understand 
correctly that there is only one limitation: the **64kB size
Except that, DNCP is generically applicable. Really?

Regards, B.
> Hello Benoit,
>
> thanks for your feedback.
>
> I've staged the following additions for -12 in our Git:
> https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/859a37237
>
> Would that address your DISCUSS? If not, please let us know what you
> would like us to add or change in addition.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
>
>
> On 20.10.2015 22:41, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Other ADs focused on the protocol specific points. So let me focus on
>> something else.
>> The applicability section doesn't answer my questions: when to (re-)use
>> this protocol?
>> Note that the write-up mentioned ANIMA.
>>
>> I see the protocol description:
>>
>>     DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
>>     publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
>>     shared and common view about the data published by every currently or
>>     recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node in a network.
>>
>> However, this applicability section doesn't tell me when to re-use DNCP
>> (or define a profile for it).
>> I see an effort to address my discuss in the appendix B of draft version
>> 11. Thanks
>>
>> What would solve my DISCUSS is an applicability section that would
>> contain
>> a high level set of criteria that would briefly explain whether DNCP is
>> applicable for
>> the specifications I have in mind. The first 2 paragraphs of section 1.1
>> is a good start,
>> then it goes considerations about Trickle, the interval A_NC_I, etc ...
>> and you lose the
>> readers.
>>
>> Something like:
>>
>>     DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
>>     publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
>>     shared and common view about the data published by every currently or
>>     recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node in a network.
>>
>>     [As an example of what I'm expected, see below.
>>      Btw, I have no idea if this text is correct or complete, but that's
>> besides the point]
>>
>>     DNCP works with profiles in which you have the flexibility to
>> specify:
>>     - the appropriate transport: the available options are TCP and UDP
>> (see
>>     section appendix B for the tradeoffs)
>>     - the transport security: TLS or DTLS, see appendix B).
>>     - If service discovery is required, an optional multicast service can
>> be defined.
>>     - TO BE COMPLETED
>>
>>     DNCP is applicable to LAN, WAN, or even the Internet.
>>     DNCP can exchange enterprise specific TLV or an IANA registry could be
>> specified
>>     DNCP specific extensions are possible.
>>     TO BE COMPLETED
>>   
>>     DNCP limitations:	
>> 	- Data published limited to 64kB
>> 	- Doesn't work for SCTP, DCCP
>>          - All devices in the network must be DNCP node?
>>          - TO BE COMPLETED
>>
>> To summarize, I need the 2 min elevator pitch of when (not) to use DNCP.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> - I would agree with Alvaro, when he wrote: "In general, I found the text
>> not straight forward or easy to understand." Potentially due to the
>> structure.
>>
>> - I hope that a document about manageability considerations (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A) will follow.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
> .
>