Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11.txt

From: Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 00:02:42 +0800

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-name-version>.txt
Reviewer: Lizhong Jin
Review Date: Oct, 21st
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

*Summary:*
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

*Comments:*

   - This draft provides an abstraction protocol specification, instead of
   defining a real protocol. If authors could provide a realistic standardized
   protocol based on this draft, that would be more convincing.
   - My biggest concern of this draft is the hash based network state
   update. The draft does not describe the case of hash collision. If the hash
   collision happens, then the network state will fail to update, which will
   be a severe problem. Although it maybe low probability of hash collision if
   we have longer hash length, but the question is, does the network could
   accept one collision?

*Nits:*

   - Some acronyms need to expand when first use, e.g., A_NC_I, CA, SHSP.

Regards
Lizhong

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:16:53 -0400

Hi Lizhong,

Thank you very much for doing this review on such short notice.

I have updated my ballot to request that the draft include a section about
considerations
for selecting a hash function and the bits to use - so as to make the
probability of
a network hash or node hash collision low enough to be acceptable.

Thanks,
Alia

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - This draft provides an abstraction protocol specification, instead
>    of defining a real protocol. If authors could provide a realistic
>    standardized protocol based on this draft, that would be more convincing.