This document describes the Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP), a generic state synchronization protocol which uses Trickle and Merkle trees. DNCP is transport agnostic and leaves some of the details to be specified in profiles, which define actual implementable DNCP based protocols.
Working Group Summary
The earliest roots of DNCP are in draft-acee-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-00 (Oct 2011) which led to draft-acee-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-00 and was published as Standards Track RFC 7503, draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-00 (April 2012), “Trickle” as defined in Standards Track RFC 6206, and HNCP first defined in draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00. DNCP in its current form was split from HNCP for the sake of modularity and reuse. Thus the work that ultimately led to this document evolved roughly through three major iterations before reaching draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00. Last call had mostly minor issues brought up, which were addressed.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Yes, one open source project at https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd/ and project homepage at http://www.homewrt.org/doku.php.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
The open source implementation (hnetd daemon) has been a part of routing feed of OpenWrt since Barrier Breaker (14.07) release in July, 2014.
Google Nest, Comcast Xfinity, D-Link, Freebox, Technicolor, and Cisco have all expressed interest in implementing and/or shipping HNCP, which relies upon DNCP. HNCP (and thereby DNCP) is referenced in version 1.0 of the Thread Specification (Nest, Samsung, etc.)
“Homenet” running either the early OSPF version and later HNCP (with DNCP) has been demonstrated publicly at:
8 IETF BnB events
1 CES Event in Las Vegas
3 IPv6 World Congress
1 Cablelabs Meeting
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
No particular Dr. reviews. I believe there has been a special request for review by the newly formed Routing Area Design Team regarding homenet, but have not seen the result. Brian Carpenter reviewed on behalf of Anima. Mikael Abrahamsson and Juliusz Chroboczek provided substantive review and comments as well.
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area
RFC Editor Note
under further review the text of the IANA section needs some improvement by copying and/or moving normative text regarding use of certain ranges of TLV types into section 7 (the TLV definition).
IANA will have one registry to setup for DNCP TLV types as outlined in the IANA Considerations section.
While DNCP is designed to be generally useful, its first usage is within Homenet (specifically HNCP) so any Expert Reviewer should be familiar with the work in the Homenet WG. Either the chairs, or other active and willing participants.