[homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-arch comments

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

I've battled through the whole document again. I'm quite happy to see this document proceed as is.
some nits and comments below. note I'm also a co-author although I haven't held the pen for a while.

cheers,
Ole

-----


this document could benefit from some weight loss throughout. the text is riddled with excess, just in the abstract alone
you can cut: increasingly, general, associated, briefly, suggests, can be employed (are used), 

s/pro-active management/active management

s/CER/CE router/?
how many names do we need for a CPE, Home Gateway, Residential Gateway, CE, CE Router, pick one of the existing ones

section 2.2 on global addressablity - include a paragraph stating that the network is exposed to ISP renumbering the network
to a much larger degree than before. NAT isolated the user against ISP renumbering to some extent.

section 2.4 ULA
paragraph on security by restricting reachability. ULAs can be used by default for devices that without configuration
only should offer services to the internal network. e.g. a printer could only accept incoming connections on a ULA,
until configured to be globally reachable.

section 3.3.2 largest possible subnets.
this seems to say, if something can be bridged together do so. is that what we want to recommend?
I don't know enough about bridging wired to wireless, versus routing wired to wireless, but someone
seemed to indicate that there were problems with bridging interfaces of greatly differing speeds.
anyone who can provide insight?

remove this paragraph from section 3.4.1
   There are reports that some CER equipment does not support receipt of
   a prefix bigger than /64, but the homenet architecture is designed
   for future IPv6 home networks, and we assume that such restricted
   equipment will become rarer over time.

the sentence: "It is expected that ISPs will deliver a relatively stable prefix" is repeated at least twice if not three times

section 3.4.1 with regards to flash renumbering. it might be noted that while the network can support flash renumbering, it will have adverse effects on applications.

section 3.4.3 s/internal prefix delegation/internal prefix assignment/ alternatively prefix configuration

"However, where ULAs are used, most likely but not necessarily in parallel with global prefixes,"
remove "but not necessarily"

section 3.4.3 remove references to possible solution drafts

section 3.4.4 shouldn't it say something more about distribution of other configuration information?