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

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

Hi Matt,
   Please find comments inline.

Thanks
Suresh

Matt Mathis wrote:
> Well, people can quote normative language out of context, which is likely to
> be very confusing.  At the very least MUST->must (etc) everywhere.  I don't
> know how picky the IESG is about this.  They should be because it dilutes all
> standards to allow documents that resemble standards but are not.

The document aims to be informational and will be indicated as such in 
the Category field of the eventual RFC(if any). If you have strong 
feelings about upper case MUSTs or if the IESG has any problems with 
this, this would be an easy change to make.

> 
> Defining R-flag etc bother me too, when there are also observational ways to
> address this.  E.g. device X has multiple up states that have different rules
> regarding legal traffic types (e.g link management vs other).  "The stack
> needs to be informed of which traffic classes are permitted at any given
> time...."   The risk here is that your text partially describes one particular
> implementation, which may not be the only way to solve the problem.  Do you
> meant to imply other solutions are incorrect?

No. The R-flag just implies that the link up event is not deterministic 
and the link layer is not sure whether the packet will get through.