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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Steven, and thanks for the response.

> I have changed them all to:
>
>   It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable of doing FOO,
>   otherwise it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1 to
>   7 to indicate a non-default priority. The values 8-15 are reserved
>   for future use.
>
> I hope this clears it up.

It does.  I'd prefer lowercase "may", rather than the 2119 key word --
the SHOULD has the 2119 language covered -- but, in any case, this
resolves the DISCUSS point nicely.  Thanks.

>> -- 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 it broader and duplicating
>> the other values from the other registry.
>>
>> 2. I think it's a bad idea for HNCP to re-define DNCP's Private Use range
>> in its registry.  I would rather see this be text in the document (here
>> in the IANA Considerations is a fine place for it) that says that HNCP
>> uses the Private Use range for per-implementation experimentation, and
>> not have that be in the HNCP registry.
>>
>> In other words, I'd make it more like this (and add a reference to RFC
>> 5226):
>>
>> NEW
>>    IANA should set up a registry for the (decimal values within range
>>    32-511, as allocated to profiles by DNCP) "HNCP TLV Types" under
>>    "Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP)", with the following
>>    initial contents:
>>
>>       32: HNCP-Version
>>       33: External-Connection
>>       34: Delegated-Prefix
>>       35: Assigned-Prefix
>>       36: Node-Address
>>       37: DHCPv4-Data
>>       38: DHCPv6-Data
>>       39: DNS-Delegated-Zone
>>       40: Domain-Name
>>       41: Node-Name
>>       42: Managed-PSK
>>       43: Prefix-Policy
>>       44-511: Unassigned
>>
>>    The policy "RFC Required" [RFC5226] should be used for future
>>    assignments.
>>
>>    The range reserved by DNCP for Private Use (768-1023) is used by
>>    HNCP for per-implementation experimentation.  How collisions are
>>    avoided is out of scope of this document.
>> END
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
> Yes, I will talk to Markus about it, but from my point of view your
> suggestion looks good.

I'll respond to Markus's message on this point.

Your responses to my other comments are good, and thanks for addressing them.

Barry