Re: [DNA] DNA Protocol vs. Protocol 2

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

I agree with Brett.

The first draft produced by the design team, 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dnadt-dna-discussion-00.txt, 
discussed different solutions for the two components of DNA (Link 
Identification and FastRA) individually. Splitting the solution now will 
be a step backwards.

thanks,
Sathya

Brett Pentland wrote:

> All three of these are parts of a DNA solution and to me they are
> just sections of a single document.  Having three separate documents
> adds overhead, but I don't really see it adding much value.
>
> I might make sense to break it into three if we want to be able to
> pick and choose bits and pieces but then we end up with all sorts of
> interoperability problems.  I think it's better as a single document,
> and if clarity is a problem, then that probably just indicates that
> the document needs some reorganisation.
>
> Brett.
>
> Syam Madanapalli wrote:
>
>>  
>> I think it is better to split the DNAv6 draft into three
>> 1. Link Identification
>> 2. Fast RA
>> 3. DNA Procedure or Operation
>>  
>> This way it is easy to understand and implement. This will also
>> help WG to better understand about each method that is solving
>> a particular problem.
>>  
>> -Syam
>