[DNA] Re: Last Call: 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting NetworkAttachments' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dna-link-information)

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>]

Hi Pekka,
   Thanks for your comments. Please find comments inline.

Cheers
Suresh

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, The IESG wrote:
>> - 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments '
>>   <draft-ietf-dna-link-information-05.txt> as an Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>> iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-12-31.
> 
> I re-read the document, and I couldn't find much to to comment on it, 
> but I don't know the details of underlying link layers very well.
> 
> I do however have one bigger "meta-comment".  The draft is aiming 
> Informational, but includes normative specification (also in 
> uppercase).  What is the goal of this draft?  Offer information on how 
> various link layers specify L2 notifications (aimed at the general 
> public/background for DNA WG, and possibly implementors), and/or to make 
> implementation specifications of its own (aimed at implementors)?

It is the former.

> 
> At the moment it seems to attempt both, but clarification is needed. If 
> the draft ends up doing the latter, Informational category might not be 
> appropriate (though I don't have a strong opinion on that). Also I hope 
> these issues have been (or will be) reviewed by the appropriate 
> organiztions via liaison statements.
> 
> editorial
> ---------
> The event attributes MUST indicate
>    whether the packets transmitted since the previous notification were
>    presumed to be blocked (B-flag) or allowed (A-flag) by the network if
>    the link-layer could determine the exact conditions.
> 
> ==> I was a bit confused about this blocked/allowed separation. Why do 
> you need two flags?  This seems to be a binary value.  Not sure if 
> rewording is needed because this is the underlying reasons for this kind 
> of design are not necessarily very relevant here..
> 

We cannot condense this into a single bit because there are three 
possible values 1) packets were blocked 2) packets were allowed 3) link 
layer does not know one way or the other.