Subject: [Int-dir] INT Dir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-06.txt

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 01:10:55 +0800

Hello, all.

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
<draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-06.txt>.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet
Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

Document: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-05.txt
Reviewer: DENG Hui
Review Date: July 1st, 2015

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
The DNCP will coexist with HNCP (DNCP profile protocol) and is designed
for a generic purpose. Also it doesn't conflict with Multiple Provision
domain design in the MIF WG. I support this work to move forward after
some better shaping.

Comments:
1) It's not easy for the audience of this document to understand DNCP
profile throughout the document, sometime we read like the definition
of terminology: "set of rules and values", later we read it like an HNCP
protocol.
if possible, I would like to recommend that the document will clearly
state this two things respectively, for example by adding a new terminology
DNCP profile
protocol which indicate future HNCP, we may also explain more clearly
about the relationship between DNCP and DNCP profile protocol.
and also in HNCP document, it could explain how it relates to DNCP protocol
by mentioning the DNCP profile protocol.

2) this document is not easy to read for a layman, cause there are many
places
mentioned about later part of the document, for example in terminology
DNCP profile, it says section 9, readers have to jump to later section to
understand what exactly it means. one way to improve by briefly listing some
rule and values here.

3) this protocol doesn't mention a port number, it may rely on DNCP profile
protocol to specify it, I recommend this document could help to clarify it.

4) the text as below in Section 2
Endpoint        a locally configured use of DNCP on a DNCP node.
I don't understand 'configured use of DNCP'. Does that mean 'a specific
DNCP
configuration entity used by a DNCP node'?

5) 'Sequence number' is mentioned for the first time in the definition
of 'Node state'. After reading through the draft I found out 'sequence
number' is in Node State TLV called 'update sequence number'. Would it
be better if the value field called 'sequence number' and the 'update'
part explained in the context? Meanwhile, the terminology of 'update
number' is used several time in the context (i. e. explaining the
calculation of network state hash). I assume this also imply 'update
sequence number' field in Node State TLV, would you clarify this?

6) In Section 5.1, it is mentioned a condition of highest node
identifier on a link. There are 2 points need to be clarified here.
First, what does a higher node identifier represent? Second, what kind
of node identifiers are classified as the node identifier on a link?
Since 'link' is defined in Section 3 as the link-layer media over which
directly connected nodes can communicate, it seems to me that only 2
nodes (identifiers) are 'on' the link?

7) For fragmentation, this draft hasn't mention how security protection
will influence the fragmentation.

Best regards,

DENG Hui

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 16:18:02 +0300

> domain design in the MIF WG. I support this work to move forward after

First of all, thanks you for the review. Although the subject says -06, 
I believe the review is of -05 (Routing area got there first and we 
addressed their comments in -06.)

> state this two things respectively, for example by adding a new
> terminology DNCP profile

dncp-06 has some changes in this direction.

dncp-07 will have substantially more; using terms ‘DNCP profile’ for the 
DNCP-specific section in a ‘DNCP-based protocol’ specification.

> understand what exactly it means. one way to improve by briefly listing some

The introduction and terminology sections were edited quite a bit in 
dncp-06, and an overview section was added to provide a general picture 
of what it does before diving to details.  Terminology has also received 
number of updates.

dncp-07 will have some further work done to address this.

> 3) this protocol doesn't mention a port number, it may rely on DNCP
> profile protocol to specify it, I recommend this document could help to
> clarify it.

In dncp-06, it is in the DNCP profile Section 9 (may have been before too).

> configuration entity used by a DNCP node'?

Addressed in dncp-06.

New definition is much more verbose:

    Endpoint          a locally configured communication endpoint of a
                      DNCP node, such as a network socket. It is either
                      bound to an Interface for multicast and unicast
                      communication, or configured for explicit unicast
                      communication with a predefined set of remote
                      addresses. Endpoints are usually in one of the
                      transport modes specified in Section 4.2.

> sequence number' field in Node State TLV, would you clarify this?

Will be in -07, thanks. Just using ‘sequence number’. (There was 
'sequence number', 'update sequence number', and 'update number' in the 
text.)

> nodes (identifiers) are 'on' the link?

This text has been heavily edited in dncp-06 already, hopefully the 
intent is clearer now.

> will influence the fragmentation.

It does not - fragmentation occurs within the whole TLVs sent inside 
{D,}TLS that represent individual fragments.

(MTU issues are heavily transport specific so I have chosen to omit them 
too).

Cheers,

-Markus

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 02:05:39 +0000

Hi Markus,

Thank you for your work on this!

Please post -07. Once I see that I'll re-read front to back and likely
progress the document.

Hui, thank you for your careful review!

Ole, when you return from leave on Monday I will look forward to your
review - please review "-07".

Thanks
Terry

On 2/07/2015 11:18 pm, "Markus Stenberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>dncp-07 will have substantially more; using terms ŒDNCP profile¹ for the
>DNCP-specific section in a ŒDNCP-based protocol¹ specification.
>
>Will be in -07, thanks. Just using Œsequence number¹. (There was

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:51:50 +0300

> review - please review "-07".

I posted the dncp-07 now.

This draft has been in relatively much churn post WGLC (partially thanks 
to diligent reviewers, partially thanks to second independent 
implementor of the spec who did the implementation post WGLC), but I 
think it is getting better; given churn though, I am sure Ole will find 
things to fix :)

Cheers,

-Markus

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:32:57 +0800

Hi Markus,

Thanks for your update suggestion, It looks good to me,
I need to go cross GFW to access my gmail, so reply you late.

Best regards,

DENG Hui

2015-07-02 21:18 GMT+08:00 Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>:

> First of all, thanks you for the review. Although the subject says -06, I
> believe the review is of -05 (Routing area got there first and we addressed
> their comments in -06.)
>
>  Comments:
> dncp-06, and an overview section was added to provide a general picture of
> what it does before diving to details.  Terminology has also received
> number of updates.
>
> Will be in -07, thanks. Just using ‘sequence number’. (There was 'sequence
> number', 'update sequence number', and 'update number' in the text.)
>
> This text has been heavily edited in dncp-06 already, hopefully the intent
> is clearer now.
>