Re: [homenet] Alia Atlas' Yes on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11: (with COMMENT)

[Markus Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

On 21.10.2015, at 19.18, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you very much for addressing my previous Discuss points and
> comments.  
> I understand that version -11 will handle the most recent concerns, as
> shown in 
> the github diff.

Well, it will be actually -12 (we change the version # last thing), but we hope so too.  We will post a new version once we come up with good answer to Benoit’s DISCUSS.

> I've also read this draft too many times at this point to be certain that
> I've picked up all the points of
> unclarity. 
> 
> a) As pointed out by Lizhong, it would be very useful to have some text
> discussing
> the issues around a network hash collision.  I suspect that this is
> related to guidance
> for a DNCP profile on how to make a decision about what hash function to
> use and
> how many bits to include

I staged this earlier to address this:

https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/0372f47bbc1866ecb3020bc31fb9cb4014ae8790

> 6) Please define H(...) in terminology, since Sec 4 uses it before it is
> defined in 
> Section 7.

It refers to an explicit field name there, as it is “H(Node Data) field” in the two references there. So for now leaving the meaning of that H() to where it is described (which is section 7). If this notation is distracting, we can rename the field to e.g. Node Data Hash field and describe it’s contents as H(Node Data) instead within it’s own subsection.

I think having the encoding-related definitions in terminology seems excessive because then reading the TLV section would require fairly long jumps between terminology and TLV section.

Cheers,

-Markus