Re: [DNA] Reality Check - Implementer Feedback

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@njit.edu>]

I vote for (d).

I don't see the point in losing all the work/discussions that has gone 
in to creating the current document.

Sathya

Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>   We have heard comments from OS vendors that the dna protocol, as it
> exists, is too complex to implement. We already have one instance of an
> OS vendor (Apple) who has shipped their own version of DNAv6 (it is
> pretty much a version of DNAv4 adapted to IPv6). From talking to the
> people who had the complexity concerns, the chairs have inferred that
> the following issues with the current document are the main obstacles to
> deployment
>
> * Router changes are NECESSARY
> * Handling of corner cases adds complexity to most likely use cases
> * Some of the DNA Goals are not really necessary/useful
>
> We have a couple of options going forward
>
> a) Forward the current document to the IESG on the standardization path
> with no hope of deployment
> b) Simplify the current document
>    - remove some of the DNA steps
>    - spin off Tentative options to a separate document
>    and then put it on the standardization path, and again risk lack of
>    deploymen
> c) Come up with a much simpler scheme which is probabilistic but works
>    decently given a set of assumptions(however limited they may be).
>    Then send it up on the standards track. This has the highest
>    probability of deployment.
> d) Do both b) and c)
>
> We would like to hear the opinions of the WG on these options.
>
> Cheers
> Suresh & Greg
>
>