Re: [DNA] dna-cpl vs. dna-hosts

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

Thomas Narten wrote:
>> 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?

Perhaps the WG viewed it as the path of least resistance when dealing 
with multiple already existing documents?
Another path of low resistance is to concatenate the two documents, but 
I don't think that makes things any more clear for the reader.

> 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.

Did you find background material in DNA hosts that would fit into a 
"design considerations" type document?

We have at least two things in the CPL document which could be moved to 
such a document (the probability calculations, and section 5 that you 
asked we remove and that Mohan wants to keep as interesting reading).

FWIW Once we have a path forward for these two documents, I think there 
is a corresponding issue with the "unmodified router" and "modified 
router" documents (CPL/hosts draft vs. DNA protocol draft) in that
  - there is some things that are common (when/how to do MLD, DAD, and 
the description of the 'link up' event)
  - a host implementor would find it easier if both were described in 
the same place.
But a router implementor only cares about a subset of what is in the DNA 
protocol draft.

    Erik