Re: [DNA] Reality Check - Implementer Feedback

[Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nsn.com>]

Option C would probably be the best if we want to see it being adopted.

-Raj


On 8/2/07 5:26 PM, "ext Sathya Narayanan" <sathya@njit.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>