RE: [DNA] DNA Goals response

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Thanks Greg and I agree we need DNA first.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au] 
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 3:16 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au; JinHyeock Choi; JinHyeock Choi
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Goals response
> 
> 
> 
> Bound, Jim wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > ACK.  Ughhh I will do my best to respond but I am on/off 
> line most of 
> > July so sporadic.
> 
> That's OK, we'll ask JinHyeock to capture the issues in an 
> issue list and have proposed changes, which will
> 
> > We also need to continue from Bernards DNA Link review.  
> Two comments 
> > that stuck in my head from that mail is do we need to have DNA over 
> > Foo if we do use L2 hints?, and is it worth it from 
> performance view?
> > Important questions we will have to answer if we are to mess with 
> > Layer
> > 1 and 2.  I also am going to ping some IEEE folks I know 
> just out of 
> > curiosity on the hints for a few of the more common foo's.
> 
> OK. The 802.21 group is apparently trying to work out some 
> general APIs for this, so they'll probably be looking into 
> some of the same issues.
> 
> DNA over foo may be needed, but to some extent we need the DNA first.
> 
> Greg
> 
>