Re: [DNA] DNA Protocol vs. Protocol 2

[Syam Madanapalli <syam@samsung.com>]

Hi Brett,


> 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.

What I was thinking is that these three can be used individually, one can
implement just Fast RA on routers, may be for other purposes.

> 
> 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 said 3 drafts but a single solution for now as a solution of the DNA
WG. These drafts will address different issues of DNA. There will
not multiple solutions that solves the single problem.

> 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.

This just a thought, everybody feels that single document is good, then
it is fine with me. When I read the DNAv6 first I felt it is very complex,
as it is solving multiple issues.

And may be we can improve the clarity of the document by 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
> 
>