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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 20 November 2015 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543DF1B3270; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8Nw2Za4Esfw; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29CA31B326B; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdv3 with SMTP id v3so166579664ykd.0; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aivruxUrlcQ8RT/ghFuPRijhV4WZ5Ae2+l0OpYQXnIo=; b=P19/MdJS2Mc+yc8vlZWACItqoYImApjeVeMgCoNmIi3lqhF7AfVxUpUvgwnUyUEDAW nzB8G/eCsedf0bQnid6Yks/UjzxsafZXEfPnW7wZlPXTsTcz5GUjNRyc1H3K8mTMbCoW DVZgkmF8Zy/hAJXPZ4new8mjJzzbWC3lG0DzAUo1ogx4MdXoyydBKIerG00oiXLJDTIH eGlVLxEW7/4cEztXiytzlAsRqG9laISCefd2zMjWlsxgFyec38KIUjRNDqozQs0qfMWi UzaXnJUAWbQpxhZl4yHjX+f6lfT5H7FI7aObWSMRRznXy5rBQAECNniqAsXECxp8TqK3 ouDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.82.145 with SMTP id g139mr1824703ywb.335.1448032468215; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.182.135 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:14:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <564EF0FC.3010107@openwrt.org>
References: <20151119054206.26381.90805.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <564EF0FC.3010107@openwrt.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:14:28 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 116S35HGyOw5hOkde-SFzM0er8Y
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+PnQB3-BNxkXzyrorzXrT1jj-fY3RxCWqA5vHYuJXb3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/AYlXraByXgq6cVjYMAODEvV01k4>
Cc: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-homenet-hncp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:14:30 -0000

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