[homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 08 July 2015 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 D5F131A00A4; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 hqLMk1kUsyPU; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585061A0074; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150708153443.24832.8574.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 08:34:43 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/Qkln0Ll0aOCQGAW-J61_858v5VA>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>, ray@bellis.me.uk
Subject: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 08 Jul 2015 15:34:46 -0000
Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: 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-prefix-assignment/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't object to the publication of this document, but there are some issues that need to be remedied. 1. Section 5 provides the considerations for selecting prefixes. However, those considerations are incomplete. RFC 7421 provides the analysis for the use of the /64 boundary. The Homenet Architecture (RFC 7368) discusses various Homenet-related issues around not getting sufficient address space to allocate /64 prefixes to links. RFC 6164 discusses the use of 127-bit prefixes on point-to-point links. Why does this section not mention any of these considerations when selecting a prefix? 2. I am raising Alvaro's point about the impact of topology changes to a DISCUSS. I think there needs to be sufficient discussion in the document on the impact of topology changes on the prefix assignment algorithm and the impact of changing prefix assignments on nodes in the network. This ties in to the point raised by Brian Carpenter on the claim in the Introduction that this algorithm can be used in "fully autonomic as well as professionally managed networks". This is especially true when convergence is described as occurring "eventually". 3. I understand that this document became standalone when the HNCP and DNCP documents split. What dependencies/assumptions does this document have on either one of them? There appears to be some assumptions on the Node ID and the flood algorithm. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * ID-nits complains about the malformed 2119 keywords text in the Terminology section. It would be good to use the entire boilerplate for the 2119 keywords. * The terminology section claims that the definitions are ordered to avoid forward reference, but that is not the case. For example, Link refers to Shared Link and Private Link, Delegated Prefix refers to Assigned Prefix, etc.
- [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Brian Haberman
- [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Pierre Pfister
- Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-i… Pierre Pfister
- Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-i… Brian Haberman
- [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Brian Haberman
- Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-i… Pierre Pfister
- [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Pierre Pfister