On 5.3.2015, at 11.19, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
>        Authors         : Markus Stenberg
>                          Steven Barth
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-01.txt
>       Pages           : 28
>       Date            : 2015-03-05
> 
> Abstract:
>   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.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-01
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-01

Appendix C.  Changelog

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-01:

   o  Fixed keep-alive semantics to consider unicast requests also
      updates of most recently consistent, and added proactive unicast
      request to ensure even inconsistent keep-alive messages eventually
      triggering consistency timestamp update.

   o  Facilitated (simple) read-only clients by making Node Connection
      TLV optional if just using DNCP for read-only purposes.

   o  Added text describing how to deal with "dense" networks, but left
      actual numbers and mechanics up to DNCP profiles and (local)
      configurations.

Also added one relatively major outstanding issue - how to deal with ‘big 
data’; even given TCP, currently there is limit of 64kb that a node can 
publish, and updates of that data are inefficient. Several alternative schemes 
underoing design, watch this space :)

So not quite LC-ready after all; the first change especially was critical, as 
under heavy load there was flapping due to the new (passive) keepalive 
definition of dncp-00 being somewhat more strict in what it accepts as 
‘present’, compared to hncp-02 ping scheme).

Cheers,

-Markus
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to