[DNA] dna-cpl vs. dna-hosts

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> Thomas' question about whether CPL and Hosts are really
> separate still remains, although I think at an earlier
> time, the WG consensus was to keep the drafts separate.

Why? And what is the benefit of keeping them separate?

I just read through the dna-hosts document, and I can't quite figure
out what its trying to do (relative to cpl). On the one hand, it (at a
high-level) describes some issues with DNA, etc., without making
specific recommendations. On the other hand, in some areas, it
includes some fairly specific SHOULD/MAY type terminology and makes
recommendations about adding random delays and such. I.e, much more
like a spec.

I strongly believe that we do not want two different documents on the
standards track making recommmendations on what a host should do for
DNA (to work with unmodified routers). All recommendations should be
in one document, and the recommendatoin we want hosts to implement
should be clear.

As it stands now, there is some overlap beween the two documents, and
there is some stuff covered in hosts that (if it needs covering)
should probably be moved to cpl.

So if there is  some reasoning for why we need two documents (and how
the content of those two documents complements, but does not overlap
with each other), I'd like to hear it.

Thomas