Re: [DNA] Comments on draft-narayan-dna-hosts-bcp

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Dear Erik, 

----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:58 pm
Subject: Re: [DNA] Comments on draft-narayan-dna-hosts-bcp

> Greg Daley wrote:
> 
> > Seriously though.  If we're working on the recommendations which
> > is there any validity in the structure?
> 
> Well, given that my starting list don't even include things like 
> "validation of current configuration" and "reachability detection" 
> (because I don't see them as necessary for the minimal effective 
> DNA 
> BCP), the structure would evolve.

:) 

Personally, I di think that some level of
reachability detection is required.

I'm not sure if it's fodder for the document.
Is the existing 2461/bis document sufficient?

There was some indication of why downlink and
uplink packet flows (and unicast/multicast)
are assymetric in their reachability properties.
Do you think there is unnecessary to have
here?  Is it unnecessary anywhere?

> I think the document needs a
>  background
>  assumptions (which goes into the L2 "link up" hint)
>  cookbook (what steps a host goes through, with DAD, MLD, and CPL)
>  security considerations
>  (optional appendix with design rationale)
> 
> > Can we compile a list here on-list (or on an issue-list) and vet
> > the concepts before inclusion into the next version?
> 
> It makes sense using the mailing list to discuss this.

I think this is a good idea.

I'll look at each part and ask questions.

>  background
>  assumptions (which goes into the L2 "link up" hint)

We had a section on initiation.
Does some of that go in here?

There's a lot of detail about 
Hysteresis, Trust of Hints, Simultaneous Hints
etc in the draft-narayana-dna-hosts-.

Is this:

a) inappropriate
b) poorly written
c) too verbose
d) partly applicable.



>  cookbook (what steps a host goes through, with DAD, MLD, and CPL)

With regard to the other protocols, is this only
the actual message exchanges required or
interactions with other layers?


>  security considerations

Is there anything in the security considerations
which you think is useful?

For example: the authorization and DNA subsection?

>  (optional appendix with design rationale)

Are there any more general concepts we need 
here?  Is it just indicating how things match
the goals?


Please be assured that I am very happy with 
your doing this review.  A critical review
is a constructive review.

Greg