Re: [DNA-BOF] Draft BoF agenda.

[JinHyeock Choi <athene@sait.samsung.co.kr>]

Hi Erik

> It might be quite useful to try to put together a first cut at
> a charter for a WG before Vienna. That way the discussions during the
> BoF can be used to tweak the charter.
> And if the charter contains a list of proposed documents that a WG
> would deliver it would make things more concrete.

I agree. The meeting time is precious commodity so that, IMHO, we'd 
better be well prepared. 

I also wish, before meeting, we talk about contentious issues as much 
as possible so that, at the meeting, BoF don't have difficulty reaching 
consensus.  
 
> I wonder if the BoF is likely to get into terminology ratholes.
> It definitely makes sense running a rat hole detector on this during
> the meeting. The term link, e.g. as defined in RFC 2460, is
> still correct but perhaps not very useful in distnguishing between
> different instances of the same type of link. So perhaps "link instance"
> is the missing term, which one or more subnet prefixes being assigned
> to each link instance.

Would you elaborate more on "link instance"? I am thinking about what 
does it mean 'to attach a network'.  

I think a network consists of three entities 1) Router, 2) Physical Medium 
and 3) on-link Prefix. But there are some ambiguities.  

Assume there are two Routers, Router1 and Router 2 on a link like below. 
They share one Access Point between them. 


                         |                |
                       __|____          __|____
                      |       |        |      |
                      |Router |        |Router|
                      |___1__ |        |___2__|                 
                          |                |
                      A:: |                |  B::  
                        __|________________|_____       
                                    |
                                  __|____                      
                                  |Access|                    
                                  | Point|                       
                                  |___ __|  
                      
Two routers advertise two different prefixes on their wireless interfaces. 
Router1 advertises the prefix A:: and Router2 advertises the the prefix B::. 

And they inject the related routes to Internet. Router1 injects route for A:: 
and Router2 injects route for B::.  

But assume Router1 is implemented with the host-specific part of Prefix 
Discovery. Hence it knows that the prefix B:: is assigned to the link by 
hearing RAs from Router2. 

Then what is the Router1's on-link prefixes on the wireless link? 
In this case, is the complete set of on-link prefixes  {Prefix A::} 
or {Prefix A:: , Prefix B::}