Re: [DNA] Reminder: WG LC on draft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt is running

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Dear Alper

Thanks for helpful feedback. 

> This document looks pretty good. I have couple of comments...
> 
>    To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check
>    whether a 'link change' has occurred.  The term 'link' used in this
>    document is as defined in RFC 2461 [4].
> 
> I think it is OK to talk about "link change" throughout the document.
> But the first time it is brought up, I recommend its relation to "subnet
> change" should be mentioned. Or, the relation between a link and a
> subnet.

ok. I made a change as below. 

   To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check
   whether a 'link change' has occurred.  The term 'link' used in this
   document is as defined in RFC 2461 [4].  The notion 'link' is not
   identical with the notion 'subnet' as defined in RFC 3753 [7].  For
   example, there may be more than one subnets in a link.

More detailed comparison, I think, would be better done in terminology 
draft. It's my understanding that terminology related issues, such as Jason 
issue, will be treated there. 
 
> There should be an explicit statement about this work being limited to
> IPv6, together with a reference to IPv4 work (DNAv4).

ok. 

I explicitly mentioned 'IPv6 Only' as Pekka's suggested. At the end of 
Introduction, I added

   This draft considered the DNA procedure only from IPv6 point of view,
   unless otherwise explicitly mentioned.  Hence, the term "IP" is to be
   understood to denote IPv6 by default.  For IPv4 case, refer [15].

>    Unlike wired environments, what constitutes wireless link is variable
>    in both time and space.  It doesn't have clear boundaries.  This may
>    be illustrated by the fact that a host may contact multiple (802.11)
>    access points at the same time.
> 
> We better clarify what "contact" means. Is it being able to hear the
> APs, or establish a link-layer connection with the APs, or something
> else?

Precisely speaking, 

a host may be under the wireless coverage of more than one APs.

Definitely, not multiple link-layer connections because that's not allowed 
in 802.11 standard. I intentionally used the word 'contact' instead of 
'connect with'.  

>    Hints come in various forms, and differ in how they indicate a
>    possible link change.  They can be link-layer event notifications,
> 
> You can put a reference to dna-l2-notifications I-D in here.

ok

>   G10 Hosts with multiple interfaces or in particular wireless
>       environments may perceive routers reachable on different links.
>       DNA schemes should take into consideration the case where a host
>       is attached to more than one link at the same time.
> 
> I think DNA scheme is run per-interface. If so, we shall state that
> somewhere in the document.

Good point. Thanks. I added the following in Introduction.  

   ..........................of its IP configuration, is called Detecting Network
   Attachment (DNA).

   DNA scheme is run per interface because some IP configuration, such
   as IPv6 address, is interface specific.  When a host has multiple
   interfaces, each interface separately check for link change to verify
   each one's IP configuration.
 
The updated draft is available at 

http://www.diffeo.com/drafts/draft-ietf-dna-goals-pre02.txt

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock