Re: [DNA-BOF] BoF Last Call on DNA WG Charter.

[Alper Yegin <alper@docomolabs-usa.com>]

>> For these nodes, it is also important detect if an acquired subnet or
>> link is new, or has already been visited. This information may be used
>> to distinguish between events where configuration must be initiated,
>> or a host already has valid configuration. For example, there may be a
>> requirement to to undertake address configuration, network-layer
>> authentication and multicast group managment signalling, before
>> receiving packets from off-link.
> 
> I think this effort should be focused on determining whether it has
> reattached to a place it knows about (in which case no further
> configuration is necessary) or a new place, in which case all the
> standard configuration will presumably need to be done.
> 
>> While it is a goal of DNA to provide network attachment detection
>> systems which do not rely upon link-layer information, in some
>> circumstances reception of hint information from lower layers may be
>> valuable in speeding detection. In order to provide guidance to
>> implementors, the group will survey existing link-layer hints and
>> define general abstractions. The mechanisms developed by the WG will
>> specify how these abstracted hints are utilized when they are
>> present.
> 
> It might be reasonable to survey existing L2 hints, but I think it is
> premature to include as in-scope the development of abstractions that
> will be used. Let us see first what existing L2's do before assuming
> that it makes sense to do the abstractions.

Minimally, being able to recognize attachment to a "place it (host) knows"
requires ability to uniquely identify the links. So, we at least need an
abstraction for "link identifiers". Please see
draft-yegin-dna-l2-hints-00.txt .

> 
>> The group will also undertake liaison opportunities with link-layer
>> standardization authorities, in an effort to improve the quality of
>> link indications for network attachment detection in future wireless
>> link technologies.
> 
> This needs a lot more justification in my mind. I.e., it sounds like
> wishful thinking on our part. What specific SDOs are we talking about?
> And which of those is actually doing stuff that we'd have influence
> on? 

IEEE Handoff Executive Committee Study Group http://www.ieee802.org/handoff/
Here is a statement from their initial call for contributions, as one of the
sugggested topics:

"* Summary of ongoing / proposed work in SEAMOBY, TRIGTRAN and IRTF's Micro
Mobility initiative and requirements they might bring to the Handoff SG"

This is a new group, and they seem to be open to collecting proposed
requirements from the higher layers...

> IMO, fixing other LLs is quite far away from what this effort
> should be focusing on. Let's focus on things we actually have some
> real influence over (i.e, IETF protocols).

Alper