Subject: [DNA] CPL Required in draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.txt?

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:24:41 +0100

All,

does the DNA Protocol 3 (draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.txt) require 
mobile nodes to implement CPL as a fall-back mechanism for non-DNA routers?

Section 7.2 seems to imply that CPL is required, where section 6.2.5 
suggests CPL is recommended only.

- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

---

From: Brett Pentland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:58:29 +1100

Hi Christian,

I think that implementing CPL should be a MUST for dealing with info
from non-DNA routers.  I guess 6.2.5 should have a MUST instead of a
SHOULD.  That section should probably also have a sentence about
changing the CPL state after receiving a CompleteRA - no need for
further solicitations.

Perhaps there should also be some text near the start of the spec
that says that CPL must be implemented by hosts for dealing with
non-DNA routers.

Cheers,
Brett.