[homenet] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11.txt

Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1554C1A9084; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oFiGq908JNO; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D8DF1A6FE5; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx6 with SMTP id fx6so98267043wic.1; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p3voGnCj2pJYtRvzcL4m3wj0r7hH0gsRwf3NFHZ5zA4=; b=hs+SlgpLjLh+tdFYQ6a8Vu98ciYR7NiNWzZqiRa6TVGUc0tozuxzyty8ayY4BB65m3 Dj67KAiLetKZckyHxSiNXlPr/JBE7sX67nHW1bIbd9vPPLlzkxx4adRIugululQuXPAz AQXhvV6nbjqPjSMRlhaJiGToyKnWt7EvH5WaVikDgBSN2Tbekzjwzu7yiPT7aUnRUpam 4wnOfiDW3Zc1ntZ4nkisCywiaP3BnFex0AN4OL2sAVLbUna/SaVi0Xkc5bs91Eb/kaNt pNvrl5NkOSRJrqWc70nIbiRzsAeXPJJHMbMGfYwSKnH4cWbB6jsYhumT1jVVuXfv7SvK UDkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id bx9mr13103886wjb.1.1445443362760; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:02:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJwSQqpB4wracdPtEUJFz8VYreDRaGgCKwrPGcSCJxETQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfd0df82e30c805229f822c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/djA2IiB-jU92w6SJmLl7VwNhcZo>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-homenet-dncp@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [homenet] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11.txt
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:02:46 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11
Reviewer: Lizhong Jin
Review Date: Oct, 21st
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.


   - This draft provides an abstraction protocol specification, instead of
   defining a real protocol. If authors could provide a realistic standardized
   protocol based on this draft, that would be more convincing.
   - My biggest concern of this draft is the hash based network state
   update. The draft does not describe the case of hash collision. If the hash
   collision happens, then the network state will fail to update, which will
   be a severe problem. Although it maybe low probability of hash collision if
   we have longer hash length, but the question is, does the network could
   accept one collision?


   - Some acronyms need to expand when first use, e.g., A_NC_I, CA, SHSP.