[DNA] Killing Jason: Issues Needs to be Settled

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Dear DNA WG 

For San Diego meeting, there are a few issues I'd like to be settled. 
If that's not possible, at least, I wish that the issues are crystal clear 
to DNA WG.  
 
1. The term 'link' & 'attachment point' 

I still see the confusion around the terms 'link' & 'attachment point'. 
We have been talking about this issue since Feb. I wish that we clarify 
the terms 'link' & 'attachment definition' so that there will be no more 
unnecessary ambiguities and arguments.  
 
My suggestions are
1) Fix the terms for 'link (L3 link)' and 'attachment point (L2 link)'. 
   - If necessary, we may adopt new terms. 
2) Announce the terms clearly and explicitly so that there will be 
    no more confusion. 
   - We may explicitly mention this at DNA terminology draft. 
     (Carving in a stone tablet also will be nice. :-) ) 

2. The term 'hint'
In drafts (Goals, CPL, framework), I use the term 'hint' as an indication 
that a link change might have occurred. Hint also triggers a host to initiate
DNA procedure. But it seems that folks confuse 'hint' with 'link-layer hint'. 

I confess that I didn't follow link-layer hint threads thoroughly. But I 
wonder, while discussing, you guys might have used the term 'hint' 
as an abbreviation for 'link-layer hint'. If that's the case, we need to 
clarify this. 

My suggestions are
1) Fix the terms for 'Hint'.   
  - If necessary, we may introduce a new term, 
    maybe 'DNA initiator' or 'DNA trigger'. 
2) Announce the term clearly and explicitly. 
 
3. G1: DNA solution based on link identify detection   

Though nobody raised an issue out of this, I ask DNA WG to pay 
more attention to the first item of the Goals list. 

   G1 DNA schemes should detect the identity of the currently attached
         link to ascertain the validity of the existing IP configuration.
        They should recognize and determine whether a link change has
        occurred and initiate the process of acquiring a new configuration
        if necessary.

I assume that DNA scheme will (or SHOULD) check for link change,
i.e. determine whether a host still remains at the same link or not, 
so that a host can ascertain the validity of its IP configuration at a stroke. 
I am afraid DNA WG doesn't have clear consensus about this. 

It's my wish that DNA WG 
1) clearly understands what G1 means and
2) explicitly accepts G1. 
 
Your feedback will be appreciated.  

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock Choi