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

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

>> 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 .
> 
> Do you mean there needs to be a way to (perhaps administratively)
> assign a globally unique link ID to each link (which could, e.g., be
> included in an RA), so a host can easily tell if its moved from one
> link to another?

If you want the ability to recognize a "recently visited link", yes.
Whether this ID can/should be provided on the link-layer or network-layer is
for further discussion.

> 
>>>> 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:
> 
> Who in this WG is actually engaged  in this activity? Could they
> please comment on the current status of this work and what IEEE is
> actually doing (and under what sort of timetable?)

I have co-authored a set of slides that were delivered to the group by one
of my coworkers. 
http://www.ieee802.org/handoff/Documents/Submissions/fmip_and_l2trigger.pdf
I have not attended any meetings, and I don't fully know the status of the
work. (Bernard has already gave some info on that..)

Alper