Re: Option A Vs Option B (RE: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges)

[Greg Daley <gregd@research.panasonic.com>]

Hi Mohan,


Just clarifying the current situation.  I don't want
to show any bias here, and it's at a fairly important
time of the consensus call, so please consider these
efforts as personal view only.


The host side of draft-ietf-dna-protocol directly relies
on CPL today, as required for backward compatibility with
unmodified routers.

Currently draft-ietf-dna-protocol also relies on
draft-ietf-dna-tentative, for interactions with routers
while a host is still optimistic.

draft-ietf-dna-cpl and draft-ietf-dna-hosts are tackling
different aspects of the same problem (host change detection
procedures, for unmodified networks).


It may be worth thinking about that Neighbour Discovery
itself contains both the host and router side information
in the same document.  This may inform peoples' opinions of
the benefits and drawbacks of such a scheme.


On the timeliness:

I agree that the document review will be longer.  In
our projected timelines, we have accounted for this,
to some extent (for either decision).

The point of choice in my guess is some expedition,
with a useful merger into two documents, or merger
into one document, which some people see as producing
a better document at the cost of potential time and
effort.


I hope this helps,

Greg


Mohan.Parthasarathy@nokia.com wrote:
>  
> I read these drafts quite sometime back, so can't answer
> this question myself.
> 
> If i have to implement the DNA protocol (draft-ietf-dna-protocol),
> should i need to read the "contents" of all the other three drafts ?
> Assume the reader is familiar with RFC 2461 which is the basic
> one without which none of this would make sense. It is still not
> clear to me how merging will speed up the process ? It will sure
> slow down the review process because folks are normally good at
> reviewing smaller documents.
> 
> -mohan
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
>> [mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
>> ext Suresh Krishnan
>> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:36 PM
>> To: Dna
>> Cc: Suresh Krishnan (QB/EMC); Greg Daley; Jari Arkko
>> Subject: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges
>> Importance: High
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>    At the last meeting in Dallas lot of concerns were raised 
>> about the number of documents being produced by the WG. The 
>> Consensus was to reduce the number of documents to keep 
>> related information together.
>>    The chairs have identified two possible merger scenarios 
>> and would like to know the opinion of the working group 
>> regarding these two.
>>
>>
>> Option A:
>> =========
>> Combine
>> 1) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6) and
>> 2) Tentative Options for Link-Layer Addresses in IPv6 
>> Neighbour Discovery (draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00 + 
>> draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00)
>>
>> into one document.
>>
>> Merge
>> 3) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 - Best Current 
>> Practices for hosts and
>> 4) DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix list based approach
>> (draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03 + draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02)
>>
>> into another document.
>>
>> Option B:
>> =========
>>
>> Merge all the above mentioned documents
>>
>> * draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00
>> * draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00
>> * draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03
>> * draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02
>>
>> into a single document.
>>
>> This consensus call will last for two weeks and will end on 
>> the 29th of June 2006. Please respond to the list whether you
>>
>> * Prefer Option A
>> * Prefer Option B
>>
>> If you do not have a preference and you are ok with either 
>> option, please respond with "Don't care ". If we have 
>> consensus on the Don't cares the chairs will make the decision.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Suresh and Greg
>>