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

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Alper

> >    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."

ok. Then the sentence will be

   ................................................................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 and 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.

I saw it. It exists. :-) 
 
> > > 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.

ok. The sentence will be 

        ...... a host may be with in the coverage area of multiple
        (802.11) access points at the same time.

> >    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.

Pekka is not entirely happy to add the above paragraphs. We exchanged
thoughts and kindly give your opinion on it.  

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock