Re: [DNA-BOF] Draft charter now online

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

> 
> I think the above is roughly right. The trouble is that we
> have two very different architectures:
> 
> 1) Link layer authentication. In this case everything is ready
>    to go when you get the final "link up" notification from
>    the lower layer; you only need to figure out the IP
>    configuration and then you can send packets.
> 
> 2) IP-layer authentication. This is the harder case. You get
>    to the network, get a "link up" notification. Then you do
>    DNA, figure out link local addresses, and start the
>    authentication process. Only then you can send packets.

This seems correct to me. I believe that, in order for DNA
to be successful, we're going to have to "pick one", or at
least define the relationship between the two architectures.

I'm not sure I know what purpose "network attachment"
serves - is it intended for the software entity that would
start the authentication process (architecture 1), or is it 
intended for notification of routing, transports, applications, 
etc. (architecture 2)?

Spencer