Re: [DNA] DNA Protocol vs. Protocol 2

[James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

I disagree.

The problem is that someone wanting to implement the protocol would have to
track down each draft and figure out how they fit together. We went through
exactly the same debate in the MIP6 bootstrapping DT, and decided against
splitting the draft because it would make the task of figuring out how the
protocol worked more complicated. It is hard enough just following up on
references in IETF documents, by having to do searches on the clumsy IETF
Web site, much less having to do the same thing for the protocol spec
itself.

Now, if the IETF used modern hypertext-based documentation technology,
rather than antiquated ASCII files, to publish its specifications, I would
have completely the opposite opinion. However, we're stuck with ASCII for
now, unfortunately.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Syam Madanapalli" <smadanapalli@gmail.com>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: "Soohong Daniel Park@samsung.com" <soohong.park@samsung.com>; "JinHyeock
Choi" <jinchoe@gmail.com>; <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>;
<dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Protocol vs. Protocol 2


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