Early Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-03
review-ietf-homenet-dncp-03-rtgdir-early-jin-2015-10-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-10-27
Requested 2015-10-19
Other 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 Clausen (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Lizhong Jin
Review review-ietf-homenet-dncp-03-rtgdir-early-jin-2015-10-27
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02749.html
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2015-10-27
Review completed: 2015-10-27

Review
review-ietf-homenet-dncp-03-rtgdir-early-jin-2015-10-27

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

.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