Re: [DNA] Issue about multiply connected to the same link and DNAbeing per-interface or not (was Re: WG LC comments ondraft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt)

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Pekka

> > We are in a disagreement.
> 
> Somewhat, yes.  But I don't think the disagreement is that bad.  :-)

Glad and relieved to hear that. :-)
 
> <snip>
> 
> >>>    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.
> >>
> >> As I wrote above, I don't agree with this.  I think this is
> >> unnecessary
> >> in the goals document.  I don't think we should include it.
> >> OTOH, if other's in the WG think otherwise, I won't insist.
> >
> > Let me summarize my thoughts.
> >
> > In case there are multiple interfaces in a host, each interface should
> > separately detect the identity of the currently attached link for
> > itself.
> >
> > Do you disagree with this? If so, we are in a serious disagreement
> > and would better find a way to resolve this.
> 
> Well, I don't really disagree with you at that point.  However,
> IMHO we would needlessly limit ourselves if we, in the goals
> document, state that DNA schemes are (always) run per interface.
> I would easily agree that they are "typically" or even "almost
> always" run per interface.  However, there are cases where that
> may not hold.  Hence my concern.

I see your point. Kindly tell me your suggestion how we will 
resove this. Would you like us to remove the paragraphs?  
I can live with it but Alper may have a different opinion. If so, 
I will try to rephrase the parts to be acceptable to both of you.
 
> But I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
 
Me too. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock