Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00.txt

Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> Mon, 05 January 2015 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
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 753AC1A1A9E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:12:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 A9viqhk-tAsP for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jenni1.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi [62.71.2.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FF91A88C0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poro.lan (80.220.64.126) by jenni1.inet.fi (8.5.142.08) (authenticated as stenma-47) id 546BDD58053FA6C5; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 21:12:28 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <20150105190837.12669.63781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:12:28 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C100F434-E3DD-4172-ABCF-CBDA68A6CCC6@iki.fi>
References: <20150105190837.12669.63781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/cya3YpF3gU1exF1akXdP6si59TI
Cc: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:12:43 -0000

On 5.1.2015, at 21.08, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Steven Barth and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-ietf-homenet-dncp
> Revision:	00
> Title:		Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
> Document date:	2015-01-05
> Group:		homenet
> Pages:		26
> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document describes the Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
>   (DNCP), a generic state synchronization protocol which uses Trickle
>   and Merkle trees.  DNCP is transport agnostic and leaves some of the
>   details to be specified in profiles, which define actual
>   implementable DNCP based protocols.

As noted by Mark Townsley late December, the splitting of HNCP-02 to a generic transport-independent protocol (DNCP-00) and the Homenet-specific application of it (HNCP-03) seemed desirable based on input from IETF91 in Hawaii.

Therefore, we did the split, clarifying and reworking the few nits we had with the original HNCP-02. In general DNCP is a protocol-framework which defines how nodes communicate, how data is encoded and secured (earlier security considerations which were temporarily split into a separate draft have been remerged) in an abstract way. Details (such as transport, timer values, port numbers, etc.) are left to the individual DNCP profiles such as HNCP.

While this is a -00 draft, it is an incremental step from HNCP-02 in terms of functionality (and some functionality is left to the HNCP-03 draft), which breaks backward compatibility in few places we deemed important. Our aim is to have this ‘done’ as soon as possible, and as the DNCP-00 itself does not contain controversial issues such as the routing protocol choice, we would like to have it reviewed and progress as soon as possible. HNCP(-03+) will depend on this being “done” before it will be done after all.

Cheers,

-Markus (+ Steven)