RE: [DNA] Best current practice for DNA

[Zhigao Chen <zgchen@psl.com.sg>]

Hi Pekka and Greg,

Thanks for your opinion and suggestion. Now I have a better
understanding of what BCP is. Our proposal tries to combine several DNA
compoents, e.g. DAD optimization and L2 hints, and provide a fast way to
do DNA. I realize it is not yet the priority of the WG. Nevertheless, we
certainly hope this piece of work could be helpful to the third stage
outlined in Greg's email.

I have a comment on the three-stage approach. Since the BCP is already
contained in the existing specifications, what we need probably is to
identify and present them in the context of DNA. So maybe we could do
the second step, i.e. the definition of state of the art concurrently
with the stage (goals/requirements).

Regards,
Zhigao  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Nikander [mailto:pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:58 AM
> To: Zhigao Chen
> Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au; 'Gregory Daley'
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Best current practice for DNA

> Based on a very quick look, this looks like a new mechanism.
> If I am wrong, please correct me, I didn't spend too much 
> time in reading the draft, so I can be easily mistaken.
> 
> Hence, does not look like a candidate for the BCP, but we can 
> consider something like this for the protocol enhancements 
> document.  However, we are *not* starting to work on the 
> protocol enhancements document, yet.  We first want the BCP 
> to be in a decent shape before starting to seriously consider 
> protocol enhancements/extensions.
> 
> Hence, I would encourage you to continue working on this as
> an individual draft, and we will consider it again in due time.
> 
> Greg, perhaps we could have a list of interesting but 
> currently-out-of-scope drafts on the web pages that you maintain?
> 
> --Pekka
> 
>