Re: [DNA] CPL & Solution Framework Issues

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Greg

Thanks for your helpful feedback. 

[omitted]
> > 1. DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix list based approach
> > 
> > We wish DNA WG to accept the draft as a WG item for DNA BCP work 
> > (after the internal review if necessary). 
> 
> I think that the work is necessary for a BCP but is it sufficient
> to describe DNA?
> 
> We can talk about that referring between Sathya's and the CPL
> draft in the session (and before).
> 
> Possibly the CPL draft could stand on its own and have some
> additional information about validity of NC entries, authorization
> dad requirements for DNA nodes etc provided in another document
> which references CPL.

Another document does not look bad. 

Contemplating Jim's feedback on the Goals draft, I come to think that 
 Sec 2 and Sec 3 of the Goals draft belong to not so much as Goals work 
but BCP work. It may make sense to remove Section 2 and 
(part of) Section 3 from the Goals draft and incorporate them into 
a separate BCP draft.  

We may discuss about this at the meeting.  

> Otherwise, if we're only allowed to put out one document, CPL should
> compose at least a part of that.
>
> At the moment I think the draft is fairly well written, but the
> on-list discussions may make some change to the composition.
> The idea is fairly firm though.

I see. Thanks for your kind words and good judgment. :-)

> > 2. DNA solution framework
> >  
> > Most of all, we wish that WG will reach consensus on 
> > Sec 2 Basic Assumptions and Sec 3 DNA Solution Sketch. 
> > 
> >    2.  Basic Assumptions  
> >      2.1   DNA solution based on link identity detection   
> >      2.2   Checking for link change with Link Identifier  
> >      2.3   RA message optimized for DNA 
> >      2.4   Quick delivery of an RA  
> > 
> >    3.  DNA Solution Sketch  
> >      3.1   Solution components  
> >      3.2   Solution procedure 
> >      3.3   Work items 
> > 
> > It's our wish that DNA WG will agree on the 'Basic Assumptions' 
> > and 'DNA solution Sketch' and decide to work in that direction.  
> 
> I think that the first is almost essential.
> The second may be possible, but relies upon the other.

ok. 
 
> > But the framework document (and 5 minute presentation) might 
> > not be sufficient to convince WG of the necessity of LinkID.
> > 
> > At least, we'd like DNA WG will clearly understand and explicitly accept 
> > 
> >      2.1 DNA solution based on link identity detection 
> > 
> > Your feedback will be appreciated. 
> 
> We may take a little longer than just the meeting for that,
> but I'd hope that we get closer to consensus on that.
> If we keep discussing things on the list, we may come to a
> similar conclusion.

I will be a happy man to see that. 
 
> Of course all decisions in the meeting need to be confirmed on
> the list.
> 
> As we've discussed with CPL, there are some quite tricky
> requirements (Link Hints, or other information) which may be
> needed to provide identification of the link.

It's my opinion it's not too much to require link-up indication. 
Also I guess CPL may work (less reliably) even without a link-up 
indication (without terrible mishap.)
 
> If we have an explicit LinkID, some of the guesswork disappears.
> 
> If CPL can be found to provide sufficiently good link identification
> itself, we may not see an explicit link identifier in the solution.

That's an interesting point. 

Now there remain only two mails, 1) Goals Issues & 2) Jason Issues, 
for you to comment. Exactly 24 hours are left before my departure and 
I am eagerly waiting for your feedbacks. :-) 

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock