Re: [DNA] CPL & Solution Framework Issues

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

Hi JinHyeock, 

I know we've discussed some of this,
but it's also good to get it on the list too.

----- Original Message -----
From: JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2004 6:11 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] CPL & Solution Framework Issues

> 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.  


Ok, lets look at removing the sections
(any objections yet?)

We've got documents where we can put some of this
now which we didn't before, so this may be
a good chance to handle the description of 
simple RA policy and recommend a good Current
Practice.


> > 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.)


I'd be a happy man to see that ;)
 
> > 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. :-) 

As you can tell, I didn't get to my e-mail
on Saturday...

We'll see if we can get the BCP/CPL relationship
sorted out by the end of the meeting.

Greg