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

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Alper, 

I think that there's still going to be
some confusion for a little while at least, 
about some naming conventions.

While it's worth discussing some issues
regarding terminology across different WGs,
it's best just to use somethign which is readily 
understood and doesn't convery ambiguity.

Therefore I like 'L2 indications' and 'L2 events'.
I don't think there's a problem if these are
used interchangably with 'link-layer indications'
and 'link-layer events', respectively

Perhaps this is what we got wrong on the term
'link' as used in the charter &goals.

My silence in this case was (tacit) approval...

I think that the expansion may be valid later
in another WG, but I think the ADs would like 
DNA to meet its charter commitments before
any work would follow within DNA.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:41 am
Subject: RE: RE : [DNA] Review of draft-yegin-dna-l2-hints-01.txt

> 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 [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 
> thatare
> > 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 
> aboveL3,
> > > 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
> 
> 
>