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

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

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Issues:
===========

-4, 1st paragraph, last sentence:
I confused by the fact this sentence says nodes MUST include
HNCP-Version, then goes on to talk about nodes _not_ including it.

-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?

-7.4, 2nd paragraph:
The MUST seems to conflict with the SHOULD in the third paragraph of
section 8.

-14.2:
It looks like some, maybe most, of the informative references  need to be
normative. They are cited with 2119 language,  cited in other protocol
definition, or are otherwise required to fully understand this draft:
3004, 2131, 3315, 3633, 4291, 1321, 6762, 6763, 2132, 4193, 7084, 7217,
4861, and 6092.


Editorial Comments:
=================

-4, 2nd paragraph: "Any node announcing the value 0 is considered to not
advertise the respective capability and thus does not take part in the
respective election."

Am I correct to assume this means "any node announcing the value 0 for a
particular capability..."?

- 5.1:"Internal category":"HNCP traffic MUST be sent and received."
What must send and receive it? (Similar comments for External Category).

-6.5:
Please expand "ULA" on first mention.

- 9, 1st paragraph: "The scheme SHOULD be used only in conjunction"
"SHOULD ... only" is a subtle way of saying SHOULD NOT. I suggest the
following:
OLD:
The scheme SHOULD be used only in conjunction...
NEW:
The scheme SHOULD NOT be used unless in conjunction...

- 14.3:
Looks like neither URL will be cited once the RFC editor removes the
appendices marked for deletion.