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

Steven Barth <> Wed, 21 October 2015 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCBB1A0087; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fp6dBN4PuXMs; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1bc0:d::4:9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 911D01A0064; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by id 1ZouXl-0005iH-0h with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:39:09 +0200
To: Benoit Claise <>, The IESG <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Steven Barth <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:39:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:40.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/40.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:39:12 -0000

Hello Benoit,

On 21.10.2015 16:12, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 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?

No, that is not true. The applicability section also mentions e.g.:

1. "each node needs to be able to store the entirety of the data
published by all nodes"

2. "As the [...] frequency of data changes per node increases [...]
the benefit of using DNCP diminishes."

3. "If the TLV set published by a node is very large, and has
frequent small changes, DNCP as currently specified in this
specification may be unsuitable as it lacks a delta synchronization
scheme to keep implementation simple."

I'm not sure what other points could be added, however it intentionally
is designed as a generic TLV-sharing protocol so its potential applicability
is broad.

Could you please provide some guidance on other factors we should
evaluate in the Applicability section? We are currently feeling a bit lost
on how we should address your concerns.