Re: [DNA-BOF] Charter Discussion: Group Description

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Alper,

Alper Yegin wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> 
>>There are basically two descriptions.
>>The first is a problem description, which doesn't
>>include DAD or Link Hints, and the second is
>>a statement of intention.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to understand what it means to not include DAD and Link Hints in
> this here. 

Sorry, I had to explain this off-list too.

This was a historical version of the document
when it had not fully emerged that we were
going to look at link-layer hints and DAD Optimization.

> I have better understanding on the DAD part, as I said at the meeting
> DAD-optimizations are more for "movement reaction" than for "movement
> detection." 

Well, we were initially looking at movement aspects.

As you pointed out previously, even if movement has not
occurred (just intermittent connection to the same network)
it may still be necessary to undertake some form of DAD.

I think that this is possibly an issue in

> Are we trying to see what this work would look like if we were to charter it
> as "movement detection in the absence of any lower-layer hints"? Or, are we
> planning to gradually increase the scope to talk about L2 hints before final
> chartering, after chartering, or never?

Yes, we're looking to increase the scope of the
description to fall into line with what was
agreed to at the BoF.

So if there are parts of the existing description
which can form part of a larger, amended description
then this may be a good start.

Once again, let's not use the term movement
generally, if there's a technology which can be
used for wireless or intermittent connection
environments such that classical mobility is not
implied.

I'm sure that we can point out that movement detection
is a good application of such a technique
(or movement reaction...).

I'll get onto the rough list of tasks soon too.

Greg