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

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Pekka

> > 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.
> 
> Looks good to me.

Glad to hear that from you. :-)
 
> >> 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.
> 
> Looks good to me other than do we need to mention 802.11 here?
> If it is true for 802.11, it may be true for other wireless
> technologies, too.

That's right. I guess this is the common property of wireless technologies. 
However, the paragraph is intended to provide a concrete and tangible 
example that will underline my point. So I think it will do more good 
than harm to mention 802.11. Moreover, some wirless technologies 
use the term 'base station', instead of 'access point'. :-) 

Best Regards

JinHyeock