Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1F512D8CE; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 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, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rsN3yjGndGJK; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (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 3C85B12D1D5; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id s63so14207748qkb.2; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VXZnsFaweQnZoCAXsJhFC1ghp7nO4eTzrBlHyWJwn3g=; b=cOZbB+worQdWtzjtrqKUuhh1qFOwCyB7yOhK8JlwqA0REl1jNwCWeYjirM5cC8P4a2 ONH9i08vvr/drE+1XjiYSM5qYa7Pbjp8e0FB+A6JhwRmKLbftyyXQs7wKBd2qZQXlkVG WNqXt55Paoc3yJVt+eNcx1WIffouONaQry4i42n9uP9TcfkLKHB6s3s2tfWhWx7aruyF 74bEIi7tAWlFcUrnb00+E0apyCzzm5jgF31luLX5hcabhTF+qzEkHc9mv+cxg4kp+whi A0/4vcbkcdX9fqXP1UP1E+m73DQ8lTHz9HvnQf6FQNYrrqPz5MlkX6l1BCSG+0zAeen9 DgQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VXZnsFaweQnZoCAXsJhFC1ghp7nO4eTzrBlHyWJwn3g=; b=h5J+sNei1HsjP5w7nAPAOjboUN4hYDR8OVYZPeq3PZZxFb/386heo+X2KymhS+KFjg jL5w0ONlxasG+LwkL11wXjA33yBjy/QiZ56isP3kZwYn5AIH4ddYepu2fU9dQcYPVChv HHcT+U9y7o7KNSmPgNhbkQaU5W+HbVlW4mzKItpT8UD6BRyj3rf8Ww91miybrENPMybZ FN/mx3JxnIP356FpttDI9AOfIrCI6UL6ijJ17VkIHu+xMfY89WhpUS4mI9uzPNg3cbgF kraQI43dNPnF5icv85GHfcDZp6Ig5b59HdsqjJz3tc70NXUYU50WQB78ioqrcGbehtIF Bw0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJM3sAYR/LApsj8K5NqZKNJkoqhqd7Ut2BnXpmpsWsIwwX/YZJ1NioKz/NC5wNh3g==
X-Received: by 10.55.116.195 with SMTP id p186mr10293392qkc.52.1468018342410; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-rdroms-nitro3.cisco.com ([173.38.117.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a22sm59989qtb.6.2016.07.08.15.52.21 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
X-Apple-Base-Url: x-msg://123/
X-Apple-Mail-Remote-Attachments: YES
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c70dc87c-395e-db96-a51e-362b58a2f92e@bellis.me.uk>
X-Apple-Windows-Friendly: 1
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:45:15 -0400
X-Apple-Mail-Signature:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C407F615-99A5-44F2-B719-9C26FC04094C@gmail.com>
References: <20160708142002.32180.68068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <71A6404B-544A-4A9F-8EB6-E9CC3E8EC3EF@gmail.com> <c70dc87c-395e-db96-a51e-362b58a2f92e@bellis.me.uk>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/wSgKHPRJlQxMxmgI2U_Hqe-RPo4>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 22:52:25 -0000


On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:30 PM 7/8/16, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>; wrote:



On 08/07/2016 17:25, Ralph Droms wrote:
I took a quick look at draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00, including a
diff; seems the only change is to solve the .home problem.  I don't
think I quite understand the new text and here's a suggested
clarification:

OLD:

A default value for this TLV MUST be set, although the default value
of the Domain-Name TLV (Section 10.6) is out of scope of this
document, and an administrator MAY configure the announcement of a
Domain-Name TLV for the network.

NEW:

The administrator MUST configure the announcement of a network-wide
zone suffix through the Domain-Name TLV.

As far as I can tell, draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00 does not address
errata 4718.  While this errata has not yet been verified, in my
opinion *something* has to be done to correct the text around
"Multicast DNS Proxy".  If "Multicast DNS Proxy" is intended to refer
to "Hybrid Proxy" in draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-03, the appropriate
normative reference will constitute a downref in
draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.

The instruction to the authors were to incorporate the original .home
errata verbatim, and also to fix the error with options 37/38 being the
wrong way around in two diagrams.

I honestly can't understand the new text.  Why a friendly suggestion for a simplification need AD intervention?


If there is to be further wordsmithing on that we'd need to take that up
with our AD.

As for errata 4718, I fully expect that it will be incorporated in a
further revision just as soon as it has been verified (and subject to a
resolution of any resulting downref issue).

OK. As an aside, *something* will have to be done with the text regarding "Multicast DNS Proxy" regardless of whether or not the errata is verified.  I see a couple of ways to read the existing text and the citations of RFC 6762.

One way to read RFC 7788 is to assume "Multicast DNS Proxy" refers to the "Multicast DNS Proxy Servers" defined in RFC 6762, in which case RFC 7788 is specifying that an HNCP device should participate in whatever election protocol "Multicast DNS Proxy Servers" use to elect the proxy server for a link.  That election protocol needs a reference 

Another way to read RFC 7788 is that there is no citation for a definition of "Multicast DNS Proxy" at all (assuming the citations of RFC 6762 apply just to mDNS and not "proxy"), in which case RFC 7788 needs to be amended to include that definition of "Multicast DNS Proxy".

Seems like the WG might want to go ahead and figure out which way it wants to fix this issue as doing nothing isn't an option.

- Ralph


kind regards,

Ray