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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 20 November 2015 15:45 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 190341B2AD8; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:45:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 fQZtr71gHZEo; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECB371B2AD2; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE629880E6; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C38328081A; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:45:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20151119135929.8847.94406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <564EE2D0.5060101@openwrt.org>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <564F3FFB.5040308@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:44:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <564EE2D0.5060101@openwrt.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HS5vBgqbSnoButpfppl0X5xJgpuntA6Ju"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/_wu6Diej5orPSSjf6N-Jg5PLfiI>
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 15:45:08 -0000

Hi Steven,
     Your response look good except for...

On 11/20/15 4:07 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
> 
>> * 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".
> 
> I have changed it to
> 
>   Such an interface uses the Internal category with the exception that
>   it MUST NOT operate as a DNCP endpoint.
> 
> to be in line with the changed definitions for the internal and external
> categories (to address one of Ben's comments).
> 

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.

Regards,
Brian