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

Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> Fri, 20 November 2015 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <cyrus@openwrt.org>
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 F347D1B3920; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:58:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_FAIL=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 70vUwc6E5htc; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.core-networks.de (mail.core-networks.de [IPv6:2001:1bc0:d::4:9]) (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 2A31E1B2ADE; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.core-networks.de id 1Zzp1N-0007qO-Oq with ESMTPSA (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:58:49 +0100
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20151119135929.8847.94406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <564EE2D0.5060101@openwrt.org> <564F3FFB.5040308@innovationslab.net>
From: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
Message-ID: <564F5148.5020905@openwrt.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:58:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:40.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/40.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <564F3FFB.5040308@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/KHSfiHobbkMkdPbQsOQWvTWW3AY>
Cc: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, mark@townsley.net, draft-ietf-homenet-hncp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman'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 16:58:54 -0000


> Two things on this.  First, is a Leaf interface on the router facing
> devices that don't support HNCP or on the hosts facing an HNCP router? I
> would think you would want this to be a category on the router.  Second,
> I don't quite understand "DNCP endpoint". There is no definition of that
> in either this spec or the DNCP spec. So, I am not sure what that would
> entail for an implementer.
The leaf category can be used for interfaces of HNCP devices on which
it doesn't which to speak HNCP, e.g. where only non-HNCP devices
are expected to be, e.g. a WiFi AP for clients. The point is to not speak
 HNCP if you don't have to which can increase security (see 12.2).

"Endpoint" is used and defined in DNCP, I called it "DNCP Endpoint"
to indicate it comes from that draft, however i can remove the "DNCP"
if that would make it more clear.



Cheers,

Steven