Re: [DNA-BOF] Modified Charter available.

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

Dear Greg

Thanks for your update. Kindly find my in line comments. 

[omitted]
> Please tell me if there are any other issues.

I guess that DNA WG will work on IPv6 only, right? It seems 
that we only have to settle the 'DAD issue'. Any progress there? 
 
[omitted]
> For the purposes of detecting network attachment, an
> L3 link is defined by the range within which IP
> packets may be sent without resorting to forwarding.
> In other words, a link is the range where a given IP
> configuration is valid.

'(L3) link', 'L2 link' and 'IP Subnet' are related but not identical. 
If we use the term 'link' carelessly, I am afraid there may be 
a confusion. I wish we clarify the terminology.     

[omitted]
> In some wireless technologies, the link layer state
> and events may not be accurate and unambiguous from
> the IP point of view. For example, a host may be able
> to see a base station but still be unable to deliver

What do you mean by 'a host may be able to see a base
station'? See in in IP layer or Link layer? Does this mean 
a host can receive a L2 frame from a base station but not 
IP packets? 

> or receive IP packets within the link. Similarily, a
> hardware indication that a radio link is up does not
> necessarily mean that all link layer configuration,
> such as authentication or virtual LAN connectivity
> has been completed.

I still have problem to see the tie between the above and DNA
work. Do we need the above? 

And in the below, what is the difference between 'change detection' 
and 'IP layer connectivity testing'?  

'Therefore detecting network attachment requires not only 
change detection but IP layer connectivity testing.'

[omitted]
> The working group will produce a document explaining
> how a node can make best use of the existing L2 and
> L3 information for detecting network attachment.

Actually I prefer the expression in below in other mail. 

"...
The working group will define best current practice
for nodes making use of existing L3 and L2 information
for detecting network attachment.
..."
 
[omitted].
> The DNA WG will not define new procedures or APIs
> related to link layers.

Does the above mean DNA will not work on any procedures 
which is related to link layer? Does the above exclude a DNA 
solution relying on link-layer support, for example link-layer 
hint? Above seems unnecessary to me. 
 
> Goals
> 
>    * Document existing link layer (L2) information
>      which is useful to start detecting network
>      attachment.
> 
>    * Specify current practice for detecting network
>      attachment and L3 link change in IPv6 networks.
> 
>    * Define a protocol extension for detecting
>      network attachment and L3 link change in IPv6
>      networks more reliably and easily.
> 
>    * Develop a DAD optimization protocol, independent
>      of link layer (L2) technology.
> 
> Deliverables
> 
> Aug 2004: Submit Goals for Detecting Network
>            Attachment in IPv6 as informational.
> 
> Aug 2004: Submit Best Current Practice for
>            Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 as BCP
> 
> Aug 2004: Submit Existing Link Layer Hints Catalogue
>            as informational.
> 
> ?Aug 2004: Submit IPv6 DAD Optimization Goals as
> ?          informational.
> 
> ?Dec 2004: Submit IPv6 DAD Optimization as Proposed
> ?          Standard
> 
> Dec 2004: Submit Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6
>            as Proposed Standard
> 
> Feb 2005: Close or Re-charter WG.

It seems goals and deliverables match now. Thanks for your elaboration.
I like it, especially the milestones. :-)

Best regards

JinHyeock Choi