Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-16.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 19 June 2014 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 13EA81A0396 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 N6DEgMPUOxwo for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4C11A0393 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 72EE3A2; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:19:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1403180382; bh=6sjUZjX6F636RxHRXsopvDZTSy2BHh1h5nelw8ONPV4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RJXR1RQX4dpvn7UNhcnscP9kV+q0nwZyUKCbfYgUQv99PuiPEYfxDmXzC9I9lPtBD w/Oxjxbhmbvnr8OBSFDdwvdKUaIan70jPvpV5+YYe4PC85hPbdfQE4j01W43CLa88P v1Y7i7zeetLpx7wUXgdbjMfOx5q80nozXNLZOc1I=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BECAA1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:19:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:19:42 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: homenet@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20140612184351.6700.10752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406191211040.18361@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20140612184351.6700.10752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/n-Ntlbry3JXlJYfBnhJrSLwkkYk
Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-16.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: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:19:47 -0000

I decided to re-read the entire arch document frmo scratch. I have some 
comments. I don't mind shipping the document as-is, but I thought I'd 
write down my thoughts as I read the document.

1. "This means that Layer 2 is largely out of
    scope, we're assuming a data link layer that supports IPv6 is
    present, and that we react accordingly.  Any IPv6-over-Foo
    definitions occur elsewhere."

While I personally have no problem with the above, it kinds of breaks 
"tone" of the rest of the document. Using "foo" in this kind of document 
where before in the document things are very strict and formal, stands 
out. It also changes from an impersonal note to "we" all of a sudden in 
the middle of the paragraph.

1.1 FQDN should probably have a reference to an RFC or something?

2.2 First paragraph is long and complicated. Took me 3 reads to store 
enough information on the stack to be able to pop at the end to the 
context understand.

In 2.2, there could be a mention added of users expecting their devices to 
not be reachable from the Internet and they historically have not been 
reachable, but when these devices are put on an IPv6 homenet, they are 
suddenly reachable if there is no filtering. Users might choose weak or no 
passwords because historically this has been fine.

2.3. With SLAAC, devices don't "receive" addresses. Perhaps write 
something about "addresses can exist within one prefix per ISP" or 
something of that effect? This section, "devices", does that mean the CER 
or devices the user connects to the CER, or both?

2.6, last paragraph. To make it more clear, I propose to change to "The 
widespread availability of robust solutions to these types of 
transition technologies requirements", since "these" refers to a previous 
paragraph and I was confused for a while what "these" actually referred 
to.

GENERAL: Generally throughout the document it talks about "acquiring an 
address" or similar wording. Perhaps this could be changed to "acquires 
adress(es)" ? It has specific statements around end hosts having multiple 
addresses, but then reverts back to mentioning adresses in singular term.

3.3.5 seems very open ended and vague. What is "the homenet DHCP server"? 
I thought each router within the home could be a DHCP server for a subnet. 
Does homenet aim to solve this information spreading problem or is it out 
of scope, or we don't know at this time?

3.6.1 there is no "." at the end of the last paragraph.

GENERAL: Since RFC6204 has been obsoleted by RFC7084, shouldn't we refer 
to 7084 instead of 6204?

So... as I stated initially, the above is mostly "nitpicking" and I don't 
require a re-spin of the document just for my comments sake, but if the 
document is re-spun for other reasons perhaps some of my comments could be 
taken into account?

Oh, just to be clear, I think this document is in good shape generally and 
I want it progressed.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se