[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DNA] Considerations for DNA Schemes with multiple Interface andLayer 2 Technologies

To: JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@diffeo.com>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Considerations for DNA Schemes with multiple Interface andLayer 2 Technologies
From: Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:46:16 +1100
Cc: YGHONG <yghong@etri.re.kr>, JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>, dna@eng.monash.edu.au, ??? <khj@etri.re.kr>, ??? <pjs@etri.re.kr>, jinchoe@samsung.com
In-reply-to: <0ffb01c4bdd3$9a55a630$c49e93dd@jinchoe>
Organization: Monash University
References: <30388A145972BC428B56434C562AE177019CD2C0@cms5><0ffb01c4bdd3$9a55a630$c49e93dd@jinchoe>
Reply-to: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au
Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922

Hi JinHyeock,

JinHyeock Choi wrote:
[cut]
> Purely DNA point of view, it would be better if CDMA doesn't support 
> 'make-before-break' at all. It would make DNA much simpler. 

I know this was a throw-away line, but it's hard to throw away.

I think that MBB will have to be supported, in DNA.  This is especially
the case where Unreachability is to be determined from certain tests.

We mainly need to be clear about which tests are applicable and
what inference is taken from received messages.  I think this
is still in coverage for the BCP and Goals though.

Greg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [DNA] Considerations for DNA Schemes with multiple Interface andLayer 2 Technologies
  - From: Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>

Next by Date: Re: [DNA] Considerations for DNA Schemes with multiple Interface andLayer 2 Technologies
Next by thread: Re: [DNA] Considerations for DNA Schemes with multiple Interface andLayer 2 Technologies
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread