Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA in IPv6 Goals I-D Update

[=?euc-kr?B?w9bB+Mf1?= <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Dear Jim

Glad to see that the mailing list comes to life again. 

Kindly find my in-line comments. 

> The Goals and problems stated are good and that is all the draft should
> be doing for this effort just state the goals.  I for one do not agree
> that RA's are totally not useful and I would like to see all mention of
> what the draft think IPv6 ND and IPv6 over Foo link info cannot do
> removed from this draft.  Just stick to the goals as we resolve and
> achieve the goals there will be plenty of time for technical debate on
> what and what does not work for DNA.  

Kindly tell us which part you'd like to remove more clearly. The mention 
of current IPv6 are mainly are at Sec 2 and Sec 3. But you seems to think 
the problems (described in Sec 3) are ok. 

We tried to present the current state of art for DNA. We aimed to describe 
the limitation of the existing IPv6 to clarify the problems and goals. It's not 
our intention to evaluate pro and con of possible solutions.  

We don't think RA's are totally useless. But neither do we think that an RA 
message by itself are adequate for checking for link change. Sometimes it 
may results in false detection to rely solely on it.  

> I do like the DNA defintion.  

Glad to hear that. 

> So
> with the removal of statements what IPv6 does and does not do I would
> support a draft that clearly identifies our goals, problems we want to
> look at and a course of technical analysis.
> 
> I will send more inline comments on the goals as I am able and I think
> we need some added too.

We are looking forward it.

Best Regards

JinHyeock