=?EUC-KR?Q?=AE=A1?= Re: Re: [DNA] RE: DNA @ IETF60 JinHyeockChoi I Networking LAB Samsung Advanced Instituteof TechnologyResearch Staff Membe

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Dear Greg

[omited]
>> I am afraid that one hour may be not enough. Not only Goals, BCP 
>> and Link-layer trigger, I think we need to talk about 'DNA solution' 
>> in San Diego meeting.
>> 
>> Based on the milestone, 'DNA solution' is due in December 2004. 
>> To submit it till then, I think that we'd better start discussing 
>> the solution now.   
>
> Well I think that's a good idea to do on the list,

If that is a good idea to do on the list, why not in the meeting?  

> but we don't have a set of drafts explicitly under consideration.

I may say that we have a few related drafts, though they may not be 
"explicitly under consideration". 

(By the way the the qualifier "explicitly under consideration" is not 
clear to me. What do you mean by that?)  

To my knowledge, there are two drafts about a way to represent 
a link change.

Router Advertisement Link Identification for Mobile IPv6 Movement Detection.
draft-pentland-mobileip-linkid-00.txt

MIPv6: from hindsight to foresight?
draft-nordmark-mobileip-mipv6-hindsight-00.txt
  
There also are two more drafts about a way for hosts to quickly receive 
an RA at a new attachment point.  

Fast Router Discovery with RA Caching in AP
draft-jinchoi-mobileip-frd-00.txt
 
IPv6 Fast Router Advertisement
draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-00.txt

Currently all of them are in hibernation because no WG agreed to work 
on them. But they belong to DNA scope and I think it would be better 
for DNA to wake them up. 

Also there may be other on-going solution works that I don't know. Why not 
ask people whether they need a time slot first, then make decision how much 
time we will need. 

This is July 23. We have more than two weeks till Internet Draft Cut-off and 
three weeks till WG scheduling close. I think it's too early to assume that 
we need only 1 hour session because there will be no work of interest for 
the meeting.  

> I thought perhaps we'd better work out what's going to be covered
> by the BCP first.
>
> If people are interested in developing ideas for
> smarter (better/faster/stronger) DNA solutions then
> that's OK.

BCP and solutions are in different planes. BCP is under constraint that 
it should not change any existing standard. But solutions has no such 
restrictions. While BCP can't introduce new options or message format, 
solutions can.

We can develop the smartest solution with constraint and the other 
smartest solution without constraint in parallel.   

> I've not seen any discussion from the WG to indicate
> that mature (enough) solutions exist though.

Does this mean that it needs to be a mature (enough) solution to be 
given a time slot in a meeting? I thought it is the other way. We give 
a presentation in a meeting to make it a mature (enough) solution. 

At the last meeting, we requested a time slot for Movement Detection 
work but couldn't get it because it was too late and DNA session was 
full (It was 1 hour session.), though the work was not without merits 
or interests.  

So I wish we try to secure enough time and provide folks chance to 
present their works and receive peer reviews. Kindly tell me your 
opinion and how you will handle this. 

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock