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

["Brian Haberman" <[e-mail]>]

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* I see where HNCP describes how interfaces are classified as internal or
external, but how does an interface get classified as leaf, guest, or
ad-hoc?  Is this some manual configuration step that needs to be
described somewhere?

* The definition of Leaf in 5.1 is unclear.  It says "Such an interface
uses the Internal category with the exception that HNCP traffic MUST NOT
be sent on the interface, and all such traffic received on the interface
MUST be ignored." The "all such traffic" is ambiguous. Based on the
definition of the Guest category, I think "all such traffic" is really
"all HNCP traffic".

* The text in section 5.3 seems incomplete. It gives a 4-step algorithm
for border discovery, but says "if the node does not implement
auto-detection, only the first step is required." If auto detection is
not supported and a fixed category is not configured, what happens? Does
this mean that if auto detection is not supported manual configuration of
the border is required?

* Section 7 describes how to handle non-HNCP capable routers. However, I
don't see any operational issues described that could arise from having a
non-HNCP capable router connecting two clouds of HNCP within the same
home network. It seems like that could cause problems with a bunch of the
services provided by HNCP.


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

* Section 3 has several ambiguous/confusing statements:

1. Does "locally unique" mean unique to the node or unique to the
link/network?

2. On a node ID collision, which node re-computes? The one detecting, I
assume.

3. "7 doublings" is an odd phrase.  Why not say "Imin * 2^7"?

* I support the other DISCUSS positions raised.