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

[Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com>]

Hi JinHyeock,


>    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.

Also "A host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the
subnets on the 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.

I'd agree. But where is that I-D, I heard about it but haven't seen it. 

> > 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'.

Bernard mentioned that one STA connecting to multiple APs simultaneously
is not prohibited by the spec, and it is feasible. I recommend you
replace "contact" with "be within the coverage are of". This reflects
your intention, and uses common terms. 

> 
> >    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

Thank you.

Alper