Re: [DNA] draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02.txt

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

> OK. Could the authors please indicate what their plans are for
> reissuing this document and what changes it will contain? (I've read
> protocol3, but if another version is coming soone, I should probably
> wait before commenting.)

I've been trying to incorporate the feedback that we've had so far. It's
in the process of being checked to see if the changes I've made are
consistent, but you're welcome to see where it's at right now.  See

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna-dt/draft-ietf-dna-protocol-pre00.txt

And a diff from protocol3 can be seen at:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna-dt/draft-ietf-dna-protocol-pre00-from-draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.diff.html

There's a few issues that have come up while making the edits:

- Should the explicit linkid always be in the LPO or can it be a flag in
   a PIO (the latter is in the draft)?

- What order do the hosts treat the indications (land mark option,
   prefixes, linkid in the draft at present)

- Given that we now have an explicit linkid, should we get rid of all of
   the flags in the landmark option - the no flag is not really needed
   and since taking that out would leave only one, we can probably get
   rid of that as well - LO in RA = yes (at present the flags are still
   there)

Regards,
Brett.

PS. I'm still not clear on procedure:
since draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.txt is what the WG accepted, does
that have to become draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00.txt as is, or can the
edited version become the -00 if there are no objections to the edits?