RE: RE : [DNA] Review of draft-yegin-dna-l2-hints-01.txt

[Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com>]

Greg, Bernard,

What is your input on this? (I'm trying to make sure we don't cram
another round of discussion into a 5 min slot)

Thanks.

Alper




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@samsung.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:59 PM
> To: 'greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au'; 'Bound, Jim'
> Cc: 'NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN'; 'Bernard Aboba';
'dna@eng.monash.edu.au'
> Subject: RE: RE : [DNA] Review of draft-yegin-dna-l2-hints-01.txt
> 
> OK, this is a good angle to discuss. I think another cause of
difference
> is about where we stand when we look at the L2->L3 info exchange.
> 
> > So while an L2 Indication is what is a message containing
information
> > authoritatively known by the originating Link-layer,  it is called
> > a Link-Layer Hint upon its transmission to the Network-Layer.
> 
> This at best can be "upon processing by DNA module". I think downgrade
> from indication (or trigger) to hint would be specific to the DNA.
Some
> other consumer of such L2 information might not have the same usage of
> this information. And we rather establish a common framework, unless
we
> want to see the same thing called differently among different
technologies
> (DNA, MOBOPTS, MIPSHOP, etc.).
> 
> I think it is perfectly fine to say "triggers/indications and the
> associated information is used as a hint by DNA" in the DNA solutions
> draft (and explain how exactly they are used).
> 
> Before the terminology gets all tangled, here is what I think:
> - it is OK to call it an "L2 indication".
> - I'd say an indication is generated as a result of a L2 event. It can
> carry an event name (link up, link down for DNA) and optionally some
> auxiliary data (IP address, L2 access point address, etc.)
> 
> For now it suffices to define the events and auxiliary data types that
are
> relevant to DNA. But in the future, some other WG can extend this....
> 
> Does this makes sense?
> 
> > This is because although it represents an event at the Link-Layer,
> > the entire message may be incorrect in detecting "link" change for
> > the Network-Layer.
> 
> This is a view from within DNA....
> 
> Alper
> 
> >
> > The link here being like in "IPv6 link-local" or "link" from
> > RFC2461.  (I'd not normally qualify this, but we're talking
> > terminology).
> >
> > regarding L3 Hints...
> >
> > I think that we're not chartered to change anything within or above
L3,
> > except the detection but certainly we'd be interested in knowing if
> > there's a port of the work we're not covering which we ought to.
> >
> > If there's a task which we need to do, lets get it discussed
> > (and possibly Bar BoFed, talked over with AD's etc, as is
appropriate).
> >
> >
> > > I still owe response on goals and will do that as best I can I
have
> >  > been on vacation now and prior to that travel.  I am working
early in
> >  > the a.m. mostly during my vacation and will try to provide goals
> > response soon.
> >
> > Thanks Jim,
> >
> > Your efforts are appreciated, but we also appreciate
> > the value of a good holiday.
> >
> > Please enjoy yourself.
> >
> > Greg