Subject: Re: [DNA] draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02.txt

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:29:00 -0500

Hi Thomas,

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02.txt
> > draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02 is for unmodified routers. Actual DNAv6 draft
> > can be found at
> 
> Yes, I understand this. My previous note was entirely within the
> specific context of receiving an RA (that contained a prefix we 
didn't
> know about) and how to handle that case.
> 
> BTW, I think it is useful to divide the problem space up three ways:
> 
> 1) host recommendations for interacting with non-upgraded routers
>   (i.e., those implementing 2461/2462)
> 
> 2) hosts/routers that can BOTH be upgraded with DNA extensions (the
>   protocol3 document)
> 
> 3) changes to routers that would benefit unmodified hosts. (also
>   contained in protocol3). I view this third category as "fixes" to
>   2461/2462 that all routers should do and as small improvements on
>   2461/2462.
> 
> while it may be OK to tackle cases 2&3 in the same document, I think
> it would be good to make it more clear that case 3 is something we
> want all routers to implement, and not just "if they want to support
> DNA".

I think that we have these broken up into 4 documents
rather than 3, with draft-ietf-dna-hosts and draft-ietf-dna-cpl
taking role 1).

Role 2 is provided by a successor document to draft-pentland-dna-
protocol3
(can we confirm that the name is draft-ietf-dna-protocol ?)

Role 3) is provided by draft-ietf-dna-routers 

Initially, the match for draft-ietf-dna-hosts and CPL wasn't
good with regard to the detail contained in the document and
authors wished for these to remain separate.

> > In most cases if the RA contains all the prefixes, the receipt 
> of first
> > RA is sufficient to check for link change.
> 
> Right. And since I expect this case to be common, its not at all 
clear
> to me that we need to make the DNA algorith more complicated to deal
> with cases that are not expected to happen much in practice.

Well, I guess we're not trying to be restrictive (the routers'
document discusses the issues though).

Greg

> Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:40:04 -0500

Hi Greg.

> rather than 3, with draft-ietf-dna-hosts and draft-ietf-dna-cpl

Is there a particular reason to have two documents rather than one?

Indeed, now I'm confused, because it appears I need to read two
documents to understand what hosts are supposed to do to handle case
1. I hope the plan isn't to have two RFCs on this topic...

Can someone summarize the main differences between these two
documents?

> protocol3 (can we confirm that the name is draft-ietf-dna-protocol
> ?)

OK. Could the authors please indicate what their plans are for
reissuing this document and what changes it will contain? (I've read
protocol3, but if another version is coming soone, I should probably
wait before commenting.)

> Role 3) is provided by draft-ietf-dna-routers

I'll have to go read this one. But I thought I saw things in the
protocol3 document that would correspond to role 3.

> document discusses the issues though).

Well, one approach would be to make it clear that this part is
optional to implement. But I certainly assumed it was a required part
of the spec as I read it.

Thomas

---

From: Brett Pentland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:18:47 +1100

> protocol3, but if another version is coming soone, I should probably

I've been trying to incorporate the feedback that we've had so far. It's
in the process of being checked to see if the changes I've made are
consistent, but you're welcome to see where it's at right now.  See

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna-dt/draft-ietf-dna-protocol-pre00.txt

And a diff from protocol3 can be seen at:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna-dt/draft-ietf-dna-protocol-pre00-from-draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.diff.html

There's a few issues that have come up while making the edits:

- Should the explicit linkid always be in the LPO or can it be a flag in
   a PIO (the latter is in the draft)?

- What order do the hosts treat the indications (land mark option,
   prefixes, linkid in the draft at present)

- Given that we now have an explicit linkid, should we get rid of all of
   the flags in the landmark option - the no flag is not really needed
   and since taking that out would leave only one, we can probably get
   rid of that as well - LO in RA = yes (at present the flags are still
   there)

Regards,
Brett.

PS. I'm still not clear on procedure:
since draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.txt is what the WG accepted, does
that have to become draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00.txt as is, or can the
edited version become the -00 if there are no objections to the edits?