Re: [DNA-BOF] Chairs' Charter discussion update.

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

Dear Greg

Kindly find my in line comments. 

[omitted]
> At this stage, it looks like the IPv6 chairs and
> ADs have agreed/asked that IPv6 DAD optimization
> goes into IPv6 WG.
> 
> This will give the work access to lots of people
> who are experienced with neighbour discovery and
> DAD, at the same time as RFC-2461/2462 updates
> are occurring.
> 
> While there's no explicit migration plan yet,
> for that work, I'll be working with the IPv6
> chairs to bring them up to date on what's
> been done in DNA BoF on this topic, so that
> they can move forward.

If DAD will be done in IPv6, it's O.K. for me. It seems 
that we are about to settle THE ONE controversial issue. 
Glad to hear that. :-)
 
> Of course we still have to get DNA to be a WG
> first, though.

Totally agree. 

> The second thing is that there is some interest
> from one of the other Internet Area WG chairs
> to improve the terminology (similarly to what
> we have discussed here).
> 
> Essentially, what was suggested was to discuss
> 'subnet change' instead of '(L3) link change'.
> 
> I guess this would be based on existing RFCs which
> say:
> 
> (RFC3513 Section 2.1)
> "Currently IPv6 continues the IPv4 model that a
>   subnet prefix is associated with one link.
>   Multiple subnet prefixes may be assigned to the
>   same link."
 
> If this is acceptable to the AD's and the WG
> chairs, would this be OK with the group?

I checked the charter and think we can substitute 'link change' 
with 'subnet change' (maybe with a little modification). It's O.K 
for me to rephrase DNA charter with 'subnet change' instead of
'link change'. 

But do you propose to replace the term '(L3) link' with 'subnet'
entirely? I think that 'subnet' and 'link' are different notions.  
 
According to 'Mobility Related Terminology (draft-ietf-seamoby
-mobility-terminology-05.txt)', subnet is as below
 
     Subnet

       A subnet is a logical group of connected network nodes. In IP
       networks, nodes in a subnet share a common network mask (in IPV4)
       or a network prefix (in IPv6).

Hence if a router advertises two different prefixes, there may be two 
different subnets in one link.  
 
The notion of 'link' is useful for DNA work, so I wish that we keep using it, 
even though we rephrase DNA charter with 'subnet change.' 

Thanks for your work for furthering DNA. I think we are almost there. :-)

Best Regards

JinHyeock