[homenet] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with COMMENT)

["Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]>]

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: 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-prefix-assignment/



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

I agree with Alvaro and Brian on the need to clarify topology changes. 
In Sec 3, I see
"   The algorithm supports dynamically changing topologies:

   o  Nodes may join or leave the set of participating Nodes.

   o  Nodes may join or leave Links.

   o  Links may be joined or split."

and what isn't clearly stated is that when a link fails (partially or
fully) or comes into existence ,
is that a topology change?

For instance, if a link fails, surely that shouldn't be a topology change
for the prefix assignment,
but rather a matter for routing to handle.  I do see in Sec 4.3 "When a
Link is removed, all Assigned Prefixes
assigned to that Link MUST be destroyed."  Perhaps a link removal isn't
considered a topology change in this
context because it doesn't cause renumbering??

How is a new Link added to be considered?  How does a router know that
its end of a link is the
same link as on another router?  How is a link "removed" versus merely
down?

An assumption seems to be that the flooding mechanism can work without
any prefix numbering.  That's fine but
would be good to state.  I'm a bit twitchy about the bootstrapping.