Re: [DNA] Confirming today's face-to-face meeting decisions

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Sathya

[omitted]
> It is the minimum requirement - similarly the same linkID can conceivably be used in more than one link (as long as they are further apart), I don't remember global uniqueness of LinkID being agreed upon. But, the linkID MUST ATLEAST BE the same within the link in one case (link scoped) and its enough if the host picks its own in the other (host scoped).
 
ok. Can I assume that now we have agreed that a link identifier 
must be the same within the link? 

> > Even with host scoped (?) approach, if there is only the secure
> > association between a host and the current AR, the host can't securely
> > detect that a link change has happened. The host can't receive a
> > secure
> > message confirming a link change when it actually happens.
> 
> In the host scoped approach, link change is inferred when the current landmark is not confirmed by the network (timeout) - I know, packet loss will have the same effect as link change and this becomes a additional cost for host scoped approach.

ok. I clarify my statement. 

Even with host scoped approach, if there is only the secure association 
between a host and the current AR, the host can't quickly detect that 
a link change has happened in secure manner. 

> My only request is that we do a cost comparison (atleast a preliminary one) before deciding to go with either approach.

ok. I am afraid that timeout approach takes too much time 
that would result in service disruption.   

Best Regards

JinHyeock