Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! A couple of remaining comments below. I removed sections that 
don't seem to need further discussion.

Ben.

On 18 Nov 2015, at 9:02, Steven Barth wrote:


[...]
>
>
>> -6.4, first paragraph: "Each HNCP node SHOULD announce an IPv6 
>> address
>> and - if it supports IPv4 - MUST announce an IPv4 address,"
>> I don't suppose there's any way we can make IPv6 a MUST?
>
> I guess we could unify both and make them both SHOULD or MUST. Right 
> now
> I can't really remember the argument for or against either but I will
> discuss it with Markus.

This was really wishful thinking on my part. I don't expect a change. I 
was mainly reacting to IPv4 being a MUST and IPv6 not.  OTOH, I'd be 
equally happy if neither were MUSTSs.

>
>
>> -7.4, 2nd paragraph:
>> The MUST seems to conflict with the SHOULD in the third paragraph of
>> section 8.
>
> That conflict is ruled out by the MUST in 10.1
> It MUST be set to some value between 1 and 7
> included (4 is the default) if the router is capable of proxying
> MDNS and 0 otherwise.
>
> and the election mechanism. If it doesn't support an MDNS proxy
> (disobeying the SHOULD) it MUST announce its mdns-capability as 0 and
> thus will never be elected and never be subject to the MUST in 7.4. 
> 2nd
> paragraph.

IIUC, a router that doesn't support MDNS will never be elected. So is 
the statement in 7.4 that an elected router MUST support MDNS 
constraining in any way?