Subject: [homenet] Getting new HNCP TLV types

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:02:31 +0200

Why are HNCP codepoints specified as "standards action"?  It's a 16-bit
space, wouldn't "documentation required" be good enough?  Or even FCFS?

-- Juliusz

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:46:10 +1200

> space, wouldn't "documentation required" be good enough?  Or even FCFS?

With my RFC6709 hat on, I would advocate a fairly strict policy for
extending something that walks and quacks like a routing protocol.
Some sort of review seems advisable. In RFC5226 terms, I'd go for
Expert Review at least.

    Brian

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:35:56 +0200

> extending something that walks and quacks like a routing protocol.

It's not really a routing protocol -- it only installs blackhole routes
and routes to directly connected prefixes, so it's unlikely to cause
routing pathologies.

And it's supposed to distribute random configuration information.  I'll
remark, while I'm at it, that the only place DHCP data can be advertised
is in the EXTERNAL-CONNECTION TLV, so there's currently no way to announce
e.g. "I'm a SIP proxy server" without announcing an external connection.

(Everyone relax -- I'm not implementing SIP in shncpd.)

> Some sort of review seems advisable. In RFC5226 terms, I'd go for

That would be fine with me.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:01:48 +0300

> That would be fine with me.

I am not big fan of expert review, as it can potentially bias what gets allocated or not.

Tinfoil hat guy in me considers FCFS potentially open for abuse.

That said, I am fine downgrading it to ‘RFC Required’ at least (or given sufficient number of most likely unbiased volunteer experts, even SR or ER). 

Cheers,

-Markus