Re: [homenet] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11.txt

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 16:16 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH==cJwSQqpB4wracdPtEUJFz8VYreDRaGgCKwrPGcSCJxETQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH==cJwSQqpB4wracdPtEUJFz8VYreDRaGgCKwrPGcSCJxETQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:16:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reL-hyBL+4no66m49TYpD9JkxgYP8O4zXeuG4CAUVK0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1ccb4e24b5f05229fb481"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/HjOcO9iMa52swJBOeiVRvBvSbJQ>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-homenet-dncp@tools.ietf.org, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Lizhong,

Thank you very much for doing this review on such short notice.

I have updated my ballot to request that the draft include a section about
considerations
for selecting a hash function and the bits to use - so as to make the
probability of
a network hash or node hash collision low enough to be acceptable.

Thanks,
Alia

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
> see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-name-version>.txt
> Reviewer: Lizhong Jin
> Review Date: Oct, 21st
> IETF LC End Date:
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> *Summary:*
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
>
> *Comments:*
>
>    - This draft provides an abstraction protocol specification, instead
>    of defining a real protocol. If authors could provide a realistic
>    standardized protocol based on this draft, that would be more convincing.
>    - My biggest concern of this draft is the hash based network state
>    update. The draft does not describe the case of hash collision. If the hash
>    collision happens, then the network state will fail to update, which will
>    be a severe problem. Although it maybe low probability of hash collision if
>    we have longer hash length, but the question is, does the network could
>    accept one collision?
>
> *Nits:*
>
>    - Some acronyms need to expand when first use, e.g., A_NC_I, CA, SHSP.
>
>
> Regards
> Lizhong
>
>

[homenet] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-… Lizhong Jin
Re: [homenet] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf… Alia Atlas