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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 November 2015 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 90CD61B2AEC; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:58:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3QMPsjdKqwV; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c: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 6B5AF1B2AEB; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkgy188 with SMTP id y188so18205950vkg.3; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:57:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XPyC/04PLhyHIQUgDg22ouKPwy5kzEu0KyMy24oUerM=; b=QzlzwV79IcUir11oihat4bodJ0k6ewp/u66kuzz285JM6190fRj3P0WbQ/RbNffHyk viBVSRnIW32hd6wkKVsL6YD6LGE1QMIJDmJBeVcgWFI4sERNWRPcMm5X70Yk7AhWz6uT Hf0eFANKcXuN/ME0UvbhQh7+LBCA4cBdWjexUtljgS/nH9neKWHFedVnolEo4kMoE2+5 igkEKOccDonzGjDJ7UD8I4yLU4aU29ZlJve48AsC/0DrNohN9cHIHiqf3l9fCMZJq51T eytYQNh8pBkU1dWz8VPiJ7l+UkpfiSEH2ZVfwf9lmolMz/bzKlssh5mQ1KuiiLBKxwQW IItg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.21.5 with SMTP id 5mr5062232vkv.28.1447945053523; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.149.79 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:57:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151119135929.8847.94406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20151119135929.8847.94406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:57:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fp2_uUH19STpA8SRDQXdEU+VC9CM-2uS0Sk4t4-93sWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143a88491de3f0524e5faf2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/sr1hO7xnpsEBtZSH3mp1rmoAqbQ>
Cc: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, Homenet <homenet@ietf.org>, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:58:22 -0000

For what it's worth ...

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>;
wrote:

> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss
>
> 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-hncp/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * I see where HNCP describes how interfaces are classified as internal or
> external, but how does an interface get classified as leaf, guest, or
> ad-hoc?  Is this some manual configuration step that needs to be
> described somewhere?
>
> * 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".
>
> * The text in section 5.3 seems incomplete. It gives a 4-step algorithm
> for border discovery, but says "if the node does not implement
> auto-detection, only the first step is required." If auto detection is
> not supported and a fixed category is not configured, what happens? Does
> this mean that if auto detection is not supported manual configuration of
> the border is required?
>
> * Section 7 describes how to handle non-HNCP capable routers. However, I
> don't see any operational issues described that could arise from having a
> non-HNCP capable router connecting two clouds of HNCP within the same
> home network. It seems like that could cause problems with a bunch of the
> services provided by HNCP.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Section 3 has several ambiguous/confusing statements:
>
> 1. Does "locally unique" mean unique to the node or unique to the
> link/network?
>
> 2. On a node ID collision, which node re-computes? The one detecting, I
> assume.
>
> 3. "7 doublings" is an odd phrase.  Why not say "Imin * 2^7"?


I don't think I"m reading this the same way Brian is, which does make a
case that it really is odd ...

Spencer


> * I support the other DISCUSS positions raised.
>
>
>