Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-10-27
Requested 2015-10-19
Authors Markus Stenberg , Steven Barth
I-D last updated 2015-10-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Thomas H. Clausen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Lizhong Jin (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Lizhong Jin
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-10-27

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


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.




Reviewer: Lizhong Jin

Review Date: Oct, 21st

IETF LC End Date:

Intended Status: Standards Track


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


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?


Some acronyms need to expand when first use, e.g.,