Subject: [DNA] Consensus call for adoption of TSLLAO as a working group item

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:24:42 +1100

Hi,

This is the start of a two week consensus call as
to whether Tentative Source Link-Layer Address Options
should be adopted as a working group item in DNA WG.

These are currently documented in: draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-02.txt

While there was some interest in this at the IETF64 session,
the chairs recognize that few people had prepared to discuss
this document before the session.

Any feedback or queries about this consensus call can be
sent to the chairs.

The consensus call will end 12:01am Saturday 3rd December UTC

The document can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-02.txt

Here's a (quick) summary of the discussion from the minutes
(from JAK, with some recollections added by GD.  Further
merged minutes will be available shortly).
---------
...

Suresh
TSLLAO

Normatively referenced by two documents, which are WG docs

IPv6 chairs want this done in DNA cause IPv6 WG is going into hibernation

Greg will present
(briefly summarizes draft)

Problem with SLLAO is that it overrides NC entry, would like to get
unicast back to an optimistic address

TSLLAO does not destroy NC entry

Implementation in Linux available from Greg

Suresh
RS can't be unicast without optoin, need to do NS. Necessary to have
this done, IANA allocation

Mohan
Solution all you need is Mac address for repsonse for RA, create NC
entry for packet. Optimistic DAD is written such that create an NC
entry if you don't have it.

Greg
Can send unicast packet back without a Neighbour Cache entry.

Mohan
Does create entry if no entry is there?

Greg
With oDAD, small chance of collision, if there's a collision, we want
operations to be safe for original address owner, advantage if temporary,
won't create or modify an entry (GD: if an entry exists). MAC binding will
be delivered to another destiantion if there is another NC entry.

Suresh
WG item - 8 hands
none against

confirm on the list.

Greg
Know it's a late agenda item, not trying to shove something through.

Suresh
Should this be in a separate document? 5 hands for
Part of solution document? 2

confirm on list

(discussion of whether separate or same)

---------

Please be aware that if adopted, further discussion on whether
the document should stand-alone or be merged into an existing
document will occur, with another consensus call.

Please send comments to the list.

Greg

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:45:26 -0800

> should be adopted as a working group item in DNA WG.

It makes sense to adopt this as a WG document.

Furthermore, I think it makes sense to keep it as a separate document, 
because there might be cases when TSLLAO will be used in the future even 
though the DNA protocol isn't used. There doesn't seem much benefits of 
putting both of them in the same document.

So once the document has been accepted as a WG document, I think the 
chairs should last call it for PS, and move forward!

    Erik

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:12:14 +0100

I think there is a good reason for moving this draft towards the 
standards track:

The draft specifies the use of a TSLLAO in Neighbor Solicitation 
messages, which is in particular useful in conjunction with Optimistic 
DAD.  This is something the DNA Protocol 3 does not cover, so it makes 
sense to publish the TSLLAO draft separately.

- Christian

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

---

From: Sathya Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:26:37 -0500

I think this should be accepted as working group document and it should
be a separate document.

- Sathya

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:20:40 +0900

I am for TSLLAO to 1) be accepted as a WG I-D and 2) be advanced as a
separate document.

Best Regards

JinHyeock