Re: [DNA] Landmark vs Link-ID prefix solution

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

Hi Jim,

Bound, Jim wrote:
[cut]
> I see similar positions and debates.  Most of the mail for me has not been
> helpful to sway me one way or the other yet.  It has shown me neither is
> complete yet.

Actually, I see things differently.

In my personal opinion, most of the e-mails have been trying
very hard to differentiate the protocols.  Possibly we've been
trying too hard - and that doesn't help people reading the threads.

I guess this gives the impression that the protocol work is incomplete.
Rather, I think the solutions may end up being over-engineered if
we try to handle each of the smallest corner cases (just to show
one as better than another).

Given that we have two protocols which achieve primarily the same
outcome (both have running code), what I think we need now
is to generate a quick comparison (currently under development),
show the WG the solutions and their summarized properties, and
make a consensus call.

[cut]
 > I intend to do in depth technical review of both and ask some folks
 > I know out of the IETF building mobile networks now for products with
> MIPv6 who want to be anonymous to help me review it as ghost persons,
 > and I am building some to of course, so I have a bias clearly.
 > Possibly there is a compromise and integration of ideas here.

Yes there's a compromise possible, but I think we should look at
whether either is acceptable to the WG.  Your review would be
particularly welcome.  Thursday may help clarify which document to
review (but it may take a couple of weeks to get the consensus call
comleted, if there's no clear sense of the room).

> What I empatically do not agree with is James K's statement that we
> should stop work on Link-ID because it may use up a bit more time and
> white paper space than Landmark.  That is not an engineering argument or
> technical rationale, but false bravado at this point I will assume for
> time-to-market reasons.  I agree with need to ship something, but this
> is serious stuff, and unless Greg tells me we don't have more time I
> assume we can get this right?

Personally, I'd like to get the WG document drafted in the coming
month, so we've got a chance to get the documents finished this year.


> I am assuming on both sides of the architectures is that there is no IPR
> from any company as authors on either of these solutions?  If there is
> and I missed it in the specs, and I will check again, please speak up
> now and tell us you have patents on what your proposing.  This has to
> stop in the IETF and will probably kill CGA and other ideas that may
> never get widely used in the market.  Most of us are quite sick of it
> and I consider it dishonorable if not presented up front immediately.

 From my knowledge no contributor to the discussion of Link
Identification has IPR.  That doesn't mean someone
else couldn't though (same as everything).

People are reminded of the IETF Note Well statement regarding IPR:

http://www.ietf.org/overview.html

Greg