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

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

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 1B2451B2A04; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 6PEqRYsJ_yKz; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (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 117E61B29FB; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obctp1 with SMTP id tp1so18672895obc.2; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WALApJ1+j2NVJnwPPbyjvWiNwlj0J154AzvccD9fRuU=; b=pJaHH5pBLA8CVFXnEQeDbrDuT0xCsUPP2cVNhopJITCyr5uOaRvYBvvGG1ZZ+U3nFL oV682Bt8DnXa/VwZ7I7ZinovAuAcouiEicMjaC2MZEF+Tbpz2OWNH0kW5RgnCLtjKvWO bfK+gGCmcfscC3C1pvobXQne8nHICCucRn8lrFkVfmG1D8eaIKoJfVP16AJflWcFTDSX PYit/9IaFkXWhvovWuIsiWJCVJWSlfENg42R/mT2/BsCVsFX5UaZ7w0WNqSAt9sKUukp rr22ZmoSQNNOw/wSCLVy0s7diVPcOerbhvGjpwa7gMgF5ZXpsm6gsEzaV74rv82kZ3sk 6ipA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.214.37 with SMTP id nx5mr6757378obc.13.1445444213425; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.121.74 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
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
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:16:56 -0000

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
>
>